It would be wrong to say that Blacks or Jews are "genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor" But you can make similar
claims about Russians – no problems. Sociopathic Carthago
delenda est (Carthage must be destroyed) is the leitmotiv
of US foreign policy toward Russia and is dictated by "Full spectrum Dominance" doctrine: nothing personal only business. In reality,
this is gaslighting the US population for pretty nefarious purposes.
They told Gorbachev, 'We promise if you agree to a reunited Germany in NATO, NATO will not move-this was Secretary of State
James Baker-one inch to the east. In other words, NATO would not move from Germany toward Russia. And it did.
The
degradation of mainstream
American press coverage of Russia,
a country still vital to US
national security, has been under way for many years. If the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and
politically inflammatory articles in leading newspapers and magazines - particularly about the Sochi Olympics, Ukraine and,
unfailingly, President
Vladimir Putin - is an indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm. The
Nation (February 12, 2014)
What Putin came to power to do was to modernize Russia, and that does not involve a cold war with the West. Period. End
of story. That's his mission. He wants to go down in history as the man who did this. Cold war, not to mention hot war, is
spoiling what he sees as his mission.
When Putin began talking about Russia's sovereignty, Russia's independent course in world affairs, they're (the
Washington elites) aghast... This is not what they expected... Putin was kind of the right person for the right time, both for
Russia and for Russian world affairs.
The people who created Russiagate are literally saying, and have been for almost three years, that the president of the
United States is a Russian agent, or he has been compromised by the Kremlin. I don't know if there has ever been anything like
this in American history... That accusation does such damage to our own institutions, to the presidency, to our electoral
system, to Congress, to the American mainstream media, not to mention the damage it's done to American-Russian relations, the
damage it has done to the way Russians, both elite Russians and young Russians, look at America today. This whole Russiagate
has not only been fraudulent, it's been a catastrophe.
Professor Stephen F. Cohen (Nov
25, 1938 – Sep 18, 2020)
The current US policy of simultaneously antagonizing both China and Russia
will likely go down as one of the 21st century's more significant strategic miscalculations.
Assuming of course that it is a part of some strategy and not just bumbling incompetence. Is Russia Being Driven Into
the Arms of China
This page is written in hope to help Russian language students to understand the country they are studying despite the level of brainwashing
typical for MSM in the West. My own views on the problem were influenced by late Professor Stephen
F. Cohen whom I really admire and follow. The US neoliberal elite became unhinged and adopted "Full Spectrum
Domination" doctrine after the collapse of the USSR. That did not play well nether for the US national security nor the world, to
say nothing about Russia. The real 101 on this topic are two his presentations:
Russophobia is not actually only about Russia. Actually it is more about American exceptionalism and imperialism (and for of all
Full spectrum Dominance doctrine). That's why neocons, who are well paid prostitutes of MIC, are such rabid Russophobes. In more way
then one it is a modern politically correct version of anti-Semitism practiced by the USA neoliberal elite.
Like anti-Semitism it is
a wedge issues, which enhances the level social control of US population and suppression of dissent, which now can be framed as "Russian
agents" in best McCarthyism traditions (NeoMcCartyism ).
Amy scapegoating of the particular nations/ethnicity is very similar, almost identical in sprit to anti-Semitism. In the definition
below I just replaced terms in Wikipedia definition of Anti-Semitism:
Russophobia is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Russians. A person who holds such positions is called an Russophobe.
Russophobia is generally considered to be a form of racism. It has also been characterized as a political ideology which serves
as an organizing principle and unites disparate groups which are opposed to liberalism.
Russophobia may be manifested in many ways, ranging from expressions of hatred of or discrimination against individual Russians...
"Russophobia is a certain perception of Russians, which may be expressed as hatred toward Russians. Rhetorical and physical manifestations
of Russophobia are directed toward Russian or non-Russian individuals and/or their property, toward Russian community institutions
and religious facilities."
The uncontroversial "illustrations" of Russophobia:
Advocating the killing or harming of Russians for ideological or religious reasons;
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Russians as such;
Holding Russians as a people responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Russian person or group;
Using the symbols and images associated with classic McCarthyism (e.g., equating Russians with Soviets and Russians
with communists);
Holding Russians collectively responsible for actions of the Russian state or the USSR;
Scapegoating is an important part of the neoliberal Propaganda machine, especially war propaganda.
Brainwashing people this way artificially (and temporary) increases social cohesion (as any enemy would) and was evoked as a defensive
tool when the neoliberal elite experienced the loss of legitimacy as happened in 2016. As
ROB
URIE noted in his Russiagate, Nazis, and
the CIA (Jul 31, 2020) CIA was Russophobic organization from the very beginning and it infects the USA political establishment
with Russophobia more effectively then COVID-19 infects US population:
The first Cold War was an imperial business enterprise to keep the Generals, bureaucrats,
and war materiel suppliers in power and their bank accounts flush after WWII. Likewise, the
American side of the nuclear arms race left former
Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA to put their paranoid fantasies forward as
assessments of Russian military capabilities. Why, of all people, would former Nazi officers be
put in charge military intelligence if accurate assessments were the goal? The Nazis hated the
Soviets more than the Americans did.
The ideological binaries of Russiagate -- for or against Donald Trump, for or against
neoliberal, petrostate Russia, define the boundaries of acceptable discourse to the benefit of
deeply nefarious interests. The U.S. has spent a century or more
trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR
in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to
loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed
NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a
negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a
reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences.
...Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American
fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time
that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the
Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly
fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business.
Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers,
including former
Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human
beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin,
Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the
Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's
overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear
weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated
into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world.
...To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward
the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly
traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and
are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,'
adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear
arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons
non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind.
...The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was met with a promised reduction in U.S. military
spending and an end to the Cold War, neither of which ultimately materialized. Following the
election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was
repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them.
In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging
the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then
unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former
Baltic
states were brought under NATO's control .
The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of
fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically
elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing
the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC)
in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here .
The economic and military
annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2
. The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 ....
The recent example of Russophobia in the USA was neo-McCarthyism campaign which was nicknamed "Russiagate", which represents classic
gaslighting of the population strategy. A common tactic used to promote the Russiagate narrative was unnamed officials
making statements to the press without providing evidence or any factual basis to their claims. Another common tactic was frequent
media appearances by former intelligence officials, like
James
Clapper and John Brennan, usually making wild accusations about Trump
and Russia. These tactics are being repeated to promote an anti-China narrative.
The loss of legitimacy of neoliberal elite which resulted in political fiasco of the establishments candidate -- Hillary Clinton
-- is why McCarthyism was dusted off and launched into mainstream with all major neoliberal MSM promoting it with the level of
coordination that might cause some envy of stalwarts of Bolsheviks press.
Overextending this trick has negative consequences as Soviet Politburo discovered in 70th. It's like boy who cried wolf: people just
stop trust neoliberal media and this process already started in 2019 with Rachel MadCow being one of the first victim: she
lost half a million viewers (may be temporary, as she is a talented demagogue, but still).
The current crisis of neoliberalism and discreditation of neoliberal ideology (2008 and then defeat of Hillary Clinton
in 2016 are two stages of the same process) created conditions in which reinventing "Red Scare" again became important, as a tool of
controlling US (and in general, Western) population and crushing the dissent.
It is also important to understand that Russophobia in many Western countries and first of all in the USA, is an official policy.
Much like in Carthago delenda est(Carthage
must be destroyed) was during certain period official policy in Rome. USA elite inherited it from British elite. In this sense
the current US neoliberal empire can be called the Western British Empire (the term which creates several interesting historical
analogies, including its possible length of existence ;-)
American neoliberal elite like the British elite before now badly need an enemy to unite nation as well as a smoke screen that hides
their own corruption. Russophobia definitely helps to suppress internal discontent caused by growing inequality, unemployment, shrinking
of the middle class and justifies the conversion of the country into National Security State after Islamic threat became less potent.
Another goal is to prevent the alliance of Germany and Russia -- which was the goal of British foreign policy for two centuries.
The mass production of faux news demonizing Russians invokes depictions of Orwell's nefarious Eurasians from whom the populace needed
Big Brother for protection. Reincarnation of Ministry of Truth by Barack Obama is just another stage of the same process -- now like
Soviet Politburo, the US government is afraid that the US people will be informed about the real events in the world. And that
like BBC and Voice of America in the past were used by Soviet population, at least some segments of US population started using RT the
same way -- to understand where MSM lie to them. Like with Voice of America in the past, it is not necessary to buy Russian propaganda
to see where neoliberal MSM completely distort the world event and hide important information. For those purposes RT can serve
perfectly well.
In a similar vain, in the current international situation, I would also consider Russophobia to be some kind of Freudian projection,
a politically correct way of replacing anti-Semitism. Kind of subconscious substitution of Jews to a different, "more acceptable"
(aka politically correct) nationality, with all related consequences and moral repercussions that entail this equivalency.
There is tragic irony here as Russians in the past were guilty of anti-Semitism (like most European nations). Now they probably
might understand better what it means to be the target of anti-Semitism. As Arkadiy Rukh observed (cited from
dr-piliulkin.livejournal.com ):
"Today, in the era of the total political correctness in the Western world there is only one object for unpunished hatred,
for realization of the inevitable phobias and other psychopathologies. This is Russia. Today Russians occupy in the world that
niche, which for many centuries was occupied by the Jews: the object instinctive, illogical, animal hatred."
While in many respects Russophobia as a social phenomenon is somewhat similar to anti-Semitism it is also a natural by-product of
American Exeptionalism as Russia refuses to accept the role of a complete
vassal of the USA, the role that the US elite designated to them after the collapse of the USSR. And the role which was temporary Russia
performed under drunk Yeltsin.
In this sense if it a condemnation of the revolt against "inevitable" in the eyes of the US elite world order -- the global
neoliberal empire led by the USA. That also explains the level of bitterness involved. Russophobia became fashionable in Western
neoliberal MSM when Russia under Putin became an obstacle on the creation of the global, dominated by the USA neoliberal empire. That
resistance to global "neoliberal project" -- neoliberal World Revolution (although weak and inconsistent -- under Putin Russia
became a member of WTO and Medvedev in general is a 'soft" neoliberal, almost a pro-Western comprador) also generates considerable amount
of hate.
Pages of European and American newspapers and their comments columns, are packed with expressions such as
"Putin is the new Hitler";
The "Russia is a primitive country that should be contained at all costs";
"All Russian are mobsters";
"Russians must pay the price for support of the Putin regime",
Putin is Stalin, Jr.
Let's restart the Cold War"
and other similar cliché that clearly remind cliché used by German propaganda against Jews. This anti-Russian hysteria also helps
to erase Snowden revelations from Western collective memory as well as WikiLeaks depiction of the USA war crimes.
The hatred of Russia now is "a new normal" for the US neoliberal establishment and controlled by this establishment MSM.
It actually seves as a pretty good smokescreen for the loss of legitimacy of neoliberal elite. How and for what reasons did this happen? The first thing to understand is that this is not a new phenomenon. British elite were adamantly
Russophobic for a long time, several centuries as Btitish empire considers Russia as a threat to British interwsts in India and the
region :
The historian J. H. Gleason, in his 1950 book The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain, characterized the nineteenth-century
English public's "antipathy toward Russia" as the "most pronounced and enduring element in the national outlook on the world abroad."
The sentiment, Gleason concluded, was concocted by a manipulative, imperial-minded elite-and was off base, anyway, since
Britain's foreign policy was actually "more provocative than Russia's" in this period. Others concur. "The world champion imperialists
of modern history, the British, were in a permanent state of hysteria about the chimera of Russia advancing over the Himalayas to
India,"
While observations of Arkadiy Rukh are, in my opinion, absolutely correct (the article I cited above is pretty interesting too and
contains a valuable discussion) I would add a more recent neoliberal edge of this problem (The
Vineyard of the Saker):
The historical roots of the Russophobia of the American elites
Having said all of the above, its actually pretty simple to understand why Russia in general, and Putin in particular, elicits
such a deep hatred from the Western plutocracy: having convinced themselves that they won the Cold War they are now facing the
double disappointment of a rapidly recovering Russia and a Western economic and political decline turning into what seems to be a
slow and painful agony.
In their bitterness and spite, Western leaders overlook the fact that Russia has nothing to do with the West's current problems.
Quite to the contrary, in fact: the main impact the collapse of the Soviet Union on the US-run international economic system
was to prolong its existence by creating a new demand for US dollars in Eastern Europe and Russia (some economists - such as
Nikolai Starikov - estimate that the collapse of the USSR gave an extra 10+ years of life to the US dollar).
In the past, Russia has been the historical arch-enemy of the British Empire. As for Jews - they have always harbored many grievances
towards pre-revolutionary Tsarist Russia. The Revolution of 1917 brought a great deal of hope for many East-European Jews, but it
was short lived as Stalin defeated Trotsky and the Communist Party was purged from many of its Jewish members. Over and over again
Russia has played a tragic role in the history of the Ashkenazi Jews and this, of course, has left a deep mark on the worldview of
the Neocons who are all deeply Russophobic, even today. Somebody might object that many Jews are deeply grateful for the Soviet Army's
liberation of Jews from the Nazi concentration camps or for the fact that the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel.
But in both cases, the country which is credited with these actions is the Soviet Union and not Russia which most Ashkenazi
Jews still typically associate anti-Jewish policies and values.
It is thus not surprising that both the Anglo and the Jewish elites in the US would harbor an almost instinctive dislike for,
and fear of, Russia, especially one perceived as resurgent or anti-American. And the fact is that they are not wrong in this perception:
Russia is most definitely resurgent, and the vast majority of the Russian public opinion is vehemently anti-American, at least if
by "America" we refer to the civilizational model or economic system.
... ... ...
Considering the never ending barrage of anti-Russian propaganda in the western corporate media one could wonder how strong anti-Russian
feelings are in the West. This is really hard to measure objectively, but as somebody born in Western Europe and who has lived a
total of 15 years in the USA I would say that anti-Russian sentiment in the West is very rare, almost non-existent. In the USA there
have always been strong anti-Communist feelings - there still are today - but somehow most Americans do make the difference between
a political ideology that they don't really understand, but that they dislike anyway, and the people which in the past used to be
associated with it.
US *politicians*, of course, mostly hate Russia, but most Americans seem to harbor very little bad feelings or apprehension
about Russia or the Russian people. I explain that by a combination of factors.
First, since more and more people in the West realize that they are not living in a democracy, but in a plutocracy of the 1%,
they tend to take the official propaganda line with more than a grain of salt (which, by the way, is exactly what was happening to
most Soviet people in the 1980s). Furthermore, more and more people in the West who oppose the plutocratic imperial order which impoverishes
and disenfranchises them into corporate serfs are quite sympathetic to Russia and Putin for "standing up to the bastards in Washington".
But even more fundamentally, there is the fact that in a bizarre twist of history Russia today stands for the values of the West
of yesterday: international law, pluralism, freedom of speech, social rights, anti-imperialism, opposition to intervention inside
sovereign states, rejection of wars as a means to settle disputes, etc.
In the case of the war in Syria, Russia's absolutely consistent stance in defense of international law has impressed many people
in the USA and Europe and one can hear more and more praise for Putin from people who in the past has deep suspicions about him.
Russia, of course, is hardly a utopia or some kind of perfect society, far from it, but it has taken the fundamental decision
to become a *normal* country, as opposed to being a global empire, and any normal country will agree to uphold the principles
of the "West of yesterday", not only Russia. In fact, Russia is very un-exceptional in its pragmatic realization that to uphold these
principles is not a matter of naive idealism, but a sound realistic policy goal. People in the West are told by their rulers and
the corporate media that Putin in an evil ex-KGB dictator who is a danger for the US and its allies, but as soon as these people
actually read or listen to what Putin actually says they find themselves in a great deal of agreement with him.
In another funny twist of history, while the Soviet population used to turn to the BBC, Voice of America or Radio Liberty
for news and information, more and more people in the West are turning to Russia Today, Press TV, or Telesur to get their information.
Hence the panicked reaction of Walter Isaacson, Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the US outfit overseeing US media
directed at foreign audiences, who declared that "we can't allow ourselves to be out-communicated by our enemies. You've got Russia
Today, Iran's Press TV, Venezuela's TeleSUR, and of course, China is launching an international broadcasting 24-hour news channel
with correspondents around the world". Folks like Isaacson know that they are slowly but surely loosing the informational battle
for the control of the minds of the general public.
And now, with the entire Snowden affair, Russia is becoming the safe harbor for those political activists who are fleeing Uncle
Sam's wrath. A quick search on the Internet will show you that more and more people are referring to Putin as the "leader of the
Free World" while other are collecting signatures to have Obama give his Nobel Prize to Putin. Truly, for those like myself who have
actually fought against the Soviet system it is absolutely amazing to see the 180 degree turn the world has taken since the 1980s.
Western elites - still stuck in the Cold War
If the world has radically changed in the last 20 years, the Western elites did not. Faced with a very frustrating reality they
are desperately trying to re-fight the Cold War with the hope of re-winning it again. Hence the never ending cycle of Russia-bashing
campaigns I mentioned at the beginning of this post. They try to re-brand Russia as the new Soviet Union, with oppressed minorities,
jailed or murdered dissidents, little or no freedom of speech, a monolithic state controlled media and an all seeing security apparatus
overseeing it all. The problem, of course, is that they are 20 years late and that these accusations don't stick very well with the
western public opinion and get exactly *zero* traction inside Russia. In fact, every attempt at interfering inside Russian political
affairs has been so inept and clumsy that it backfired every single time. From the absolutely futile attempts of the West to organize
a color-coded revolution in the streets of Moscow to the totally counter-productive attempts to create some kind of crisis around
homosexual human rights in Russia - every step taken by the western propaganda machine has only strengthened Vladimir Putin and his
the "Eurasian Sovereignists" at the expense of the "Atlantic Integrationist" faction inside the Kremlin.
There was a deep and poignant symbolism in the latest meeting of the 21
APEC countries in Bali. Obama had to
cancel his trip because of the US budget crisis while Putin was treated to a musically horrible but politically deeply significant
rendition of "Happy birthday to you!" by a spontaneous choir composed of the leaders of the Pacific Rim countries. I can just
imagine the rage of the White House when they saw "their" Pacific allies serenading Putin for his birthday!
... ... ...
On one side we have the 1%, the Anglo imperialists and the Ziocons, while on the other we have the rest of the planet, including
potentially 99% of the American people. If it is true that at this moment in time Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists are the most
powerful and best organized faction of the worldwide resistance to the Empire, they are far from being central, or even less so,
crucial, to it. Yes, Russia can, and will, play its role, but only as a normal country amongst many other normal countries,
some small and economically weak like Ecuador, other huge and powerful like China. But even small Ecuador was "big enough" to grand
refuge to Julian Assange while China seems to have asked Snowden to please leave. So Ecuador is not that small after all?
It would be naive to hope that this "de-imperialization" process of the USA could happen without violence. The French and British
Empires collapsed against the bloody backdrop of WWII, while did the Nazi and Japanese Empires were crushed under a carpet of bombs.
The Soviet Empire collapsed with comparatively less victims, and most of the violence which did take place during that process happened
on the Soviet periphery. In Russia itself, the number of death of the mini civil war of 1993 was counted in the thousands and not
in the millions. And by God's great mercy, not a single nuclear weapon was detonated anywhere.
So what will likely happen when the US-Ziocon Empire finally collapses under its own weight? Nobody can tell for sure, but we
can at least hope that just as no major force appeared to rescue the Soviet Empire in 1991-1993, no major force will attempt to save
the US Empire either. As David Rovic's puts it so well, the big weakness of the 1% which rule the US-Ziocon Empire is that "they
are a tiny minority and we are everywhere".
In the past 20 years the US and Russia have followed diametrically opposed courses and their roles appears to have been reversed.
That "pas de deux" is coming to some kind of end now. Objective circumstances have now again placed these two countries in opposition
to each other, but this is solely due to the nature of the regime in Washington DC. Russian leaders could repeat the words of the
English rapper Lowkey and declare "I'm not anti-America, America is anti-me!" and they could potentially be joined by 99%
of Americans who, whether they already realize it or not, are also the victims of the US-Ziocon Empire.
In the meantime, the barrage of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns will continue unabated simply because this seems to have
become a form of psychotherapy for a panicked and clueless western plutocracy. And just as in all the previous cases, this propaganda
campaign will have no effect at all.
It is my hope that next time we hear about whatever comes next after the current "Greenpeace" campaign you will keep all this
in mind.
During the "cold War" the "old" US elite behaved more or less reasonably and tried to avoid unnecessary confrontation. Several moments
were clear exception (Korea War, Cuban crisis, Vietnam war and support of radical political Islam in Afghanistan), but all-in-all it
was kind of policy of "peaceful coexistence" (live and give other chance to live), not of an outright "all out" confrontation.
Intelligence agencies behaves more provocatively, especially CIA in Europe, which organized and trained Nazi collaborators for the
resistance to the possible Soviet invasion, and subsequent guerilla movement against Soviet occupation. Also in case of JFK assassination,
the patsy was chosen by the CIA in a way that makes it easy to implicate Russia. But those were exception, rather then the rule.
Probably the memory of the WWII and the level of cooperation of two countries in this war as allies still played some role in such restrain.
But eventually a new generation of US elite, the elite did not have WWII experience come to power. This new US elite
tried hard to colonize Russia instead of making it a valuable partner after dissolution of the USSR. Bill Clinton and Larry Summers
are two good example of this behaviour.
This adventurism backfired. This was probably the first blunder, the blunder make by Clinton administration -- the first administration
with a lot of neocons onboard (we all remember unforgettable female neocon
Madeleine Albright). they failed to utilize pro-USA
fe4elings of the Russian population after the dissolution of the USA. Should the USA adopt the Marshall plan for Russia those feelings
would be preserved. But the Clinton administration decided to loot Russia and concert it into a vassal state. That was a strategic
mistake, although looting succeeded on a really grand stale (several trillions were stolen) with the help of
Harvard mafia and Russian compradors. The instituted shock therapy for
the Russian economics which plunged it into depression which was worse thatn the one which was coursed by the Germany aggression in
WWII. Many important enterprises went bankrupts, other were bought by foreign investors for pennies on the dollar (Browder
was one notable example of this "looting gang" that descended on Russia at the time; Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky and other Jewish oligarchs
were another important players in this looting)
Subsequent administration also demonstrated strong neocon influence (actually neocons, such as
Paul Wolfowitz dominated Bush II administration foreign policy) and due to it
made several strategic blunders such as invasions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. And that despite the fact the Russia provided
great help in Afghan operation, as it essentially controlled (and armed) the North Alliance against Taliban.
Obama administration essentially continued Bush II foreign policy without major changes. The only change was that is did was more
double-dealing. It did get Russia into a trap, when Medvedev government abstained in UN Security council votes for Libyan resolution
(which was a disguised justification of NATO military intervention), which opened the way to the occupation of Libya and killing of
colonel Kaddafi ("We came, we saw, he died"). Obama administration also masterfully played Iran card against Russia, crashing
oil prices three times (from $120 to $30) from the second half of 2014 to January 2016 and keeping oil prices below $50 per barrel (on
average) all 2016 (Russia needs approximately $50-$55 just to balance the state budget).
It also outplayed Russia in Ukraine tuning this county into nationalistic enclave extremely hostile to Russia (see
"Fuck the EU": neocons show EU its real place ). And then to add insult to injury introduced
sanctions against Russia. Obama might be not a great president, but he for sure is one
of the greatest hypocrites in world history.
But those attacks as well as a clear attempt to encircle Russia in Europe backfired: if you pursue containment of China and at the
same time introduce sanctions against Russia it is only natural that these countries will become closer political partners. From the
point of view of traditional American and any other political logic, actions that contribute to the rapprochement between Moscow and
Beijing, are, to put it mildly, unwise. And that what Obama administration archived. This is the main legacy of Obama administration
in foreign policy, which was dutifully continued by Trump administration (actually the USA foreign policy does not depend of who is
in power as the President and who is the Secretary of State; it is controlled by the Deep State -- forces outside elected executive
branch and which consist of MIC, intelligence agencies and the Wall Street (financial oligarchy) as well as created by then think tanks
such and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)).
Russian elite for too long was trying to please the Western colleagues. They swallowed completely unacceptable things. Gorbachov
is generally considered in Russia as a traitor of the nation. They resigned to NATO expansion. Even after the bombing of Yugoslavia,
which was a clear violation of international law, they still viewed the USA a friendly nation and hoped for the best. Another
problem was that Russia was too weak at the moment, kind of semi-colony of the USA (and Yeltsin regime was clearly a comprador regime,
no question about it).
But at this point attitude to the USA start changing to negative. After Ukrainian coup d'état of February 2014 (Maydan Revolution,
as it is called in the West) this change only accelerated and "Athlantists" group enough Russian neoliberal elite lost a lot of influence
and became politically ostracized. . In other words huge amount of political goodwill that existed in Russia after dissolution of the
USSR was completely squandered in less then 30 years. That's an amazing art of making enemies from friends.
But at the end of Obama administration Russia just stopped to trust the USA. At all. They view Obama as treacherous and extremely
dangerous imperialist, who will not stop at anything by promoting the US domination. That means that they now view the USA as
a geopolitical gangster, which is violating any laws in impunity using classic "might makes right" principle. That's a dangerous view
and dangerous situation for the USA. This is another geopolitical blunder of the US elite. This view only became stronger
under Trump administration.
I never was a Russian citizen, but I was and still am interested in Russian politics and, especially, culture. I think that it is
a European culture in its essence. Very interesting and very rich. Which was able to survive years of Soviet rule. So attempt of isolate
Russia from Europe attempted by Obama neocons (see Nulandgate), following classic "device
and conquer" strategy of British Empire, might be a geopolitical mistake despite short term dividends this action brought
to the USA geopolitical position in the region. It also increase the changes of WWIII, which definitely would mean end of
the USA as the global empire and probably as a country (the same is true for Russia -- both countries will be completely devastated)
Neocons defined Russia as the main threat. In other words deterrence of Moscow became the strategic goal of the USA foreign policy,
which is essentially a neocon foreign policy, the policy of obtaining
and maintaining the world domination at all costs.
That means that the efforts to explicitly shape the USA public opinion to see Russia as the key geopolitical enemy are dictated by
priorities of the USA foreign policy, which is defined by neocons.
This "Anaconda strategy" of encircling Russia got a significant boost after the victory of far right in EuroMaidan. This event has
become for a great geopolitical victory for the USA and humbling defeat for Russia. Russia was in bad shape to prevent it, as the logic
of development of new state immanently produces anti-Russian sentiments as the mean to create their own identity. But still weakness
of Russia in Ukraine was real and signify a serious problems ahead. Also the USA is way to strong to go into open confontation with
the US neocons, which dominates the US foreign policy.
The reaction of Russia on far right victory at EuroMaydan gave rise in in the US establishment, to even more active implementation
of the strategy of confrontation, and propaganda campaign against "the Russian threat". Like Bolsheviks before them (and neocons
are just turncoat Trotskyites, so there are a lot of common between two), they hate any obstacle on the path to creation of global neoliberal
empire led by the USA. This strategy involves increasing the military presence on the European continent and military power of NATO.
Much tougher stance toward Russian projects in Western and Eastern Europe and in attacks on the level of international organizations.
Along with the anti-Russian operations in Europe, the US and its satellites are active in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus.
A good example is the recent attempt to organize a Maidan in Armenia.
My negative attitude to distortions and clearly orchestrated by White house anti-Russian campaign in the USA press reflects
my natural skepticism. I am not content with typical coverage of Russia in the USA press which reminds me the caricature on the USA
coverage by Soviet press (which at the time had higher standard of living the people of the USSR and low level of unemployment).
I consider hysteric Russophobia that is now practiced to be simplistic and counterproductive policy which serves to promote equally
shortsighted global imperial policy that benefits only the US financial oligarchy. Policy that has considerable cold-war inertia and
that is damaging to the USA long term interests. Most journalists are simply behave like paid attack dogs (a good example here is Mr.
Wallace: his interview of Putin was an insult to the American people;
Wallace actually tried to lecture Vladimir Putin).
Here I collected some of the authors who try to see more long term approach and try to present their own understanding of the complex
problems related to previous US attempt to colonize Russia after the dissolution of the USSR. Or at least advice a more realistic
US foreign policy toward Russia. Of course it is nice to squash the old geo-political enemy like a bug and I would be the first
to admit that under Yeltsin West came close to this scenario. Criminal privatization of Russian companies was hugely successful attempt
to put an end to the Russia as an independent country. Similar strategy was by-and-large successful in other USSR republics like Ukraine,
Georgia and especially Baltic countries creating what can be called New Latin America.
But after Putin came to power, the attempts to convert Russia into yet another Latin American country became gradually reversed (although
this process is some areas went too far and to reverse it completely is very difficult). As Ira Straus aptly put it in her letter
Russia, U.S. Media:
Nowadays attacking Russia has a politically correct tinge to it, since Russia is a white Christian country. By contrast, attacking
China still suffers from being susceptible to counter-charges of racism and anti-Communism. Perhaps this is the source of the strange
double standard in which Russia is attacked just about any day for just about anything while China is virtually ignored day after
day, month after month for the same and far worse.
Attacking Russia is especially "correct" when it is a matter attacking a Republican Administration for being soft on a Russia
that is beating up on Muslims. One doubts that much of the American public shares the media's sensibilities on this. Picture bubba
listening as Dan Rather launches into Russia for beating up on Muslim Chechens; he'll probably be telling himself, "there the liberal
media go again, standing up for our enemies and blaming our allies the Russians for fighting back". Among Americans who write about
politics, only Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter dare to say such things, but many more think it, in whole or in part.
The importance of adversarial culture for the media can be seen from the Bush I administration, which truly was anti-Russian.
The media bashed Bush I for this; it became ambivalent on Russia, taking on a more pro-Russian hue than any time before or since.
As soon as Clinton got a pro-Russian reputation, the media switched back to Russia-bashing mode. It was Clinton-bashing that was
the real point.
In other words, the media should not be taken as a barometer of U.S. government policies on Russia. It is more often an indicator
of the opposite.
What does it matter? A lot. The media drumbeat against Russia has an enormous impact on public policy, not only in the US
but in every Western country, and in Russia itself. It makes it hard to think clearly, or even to see clearly. It fosters and fans
conflict. It promotes a tit for every tat.
First, the effects on Russians. The media play an enormous role in convincing them that we're an enemy. They can see CNN, BBC
and other Western media daily, at length; they hear from our government only rarely, and practically never from the American people.
They can see the Western media's implicit premises far more clearly than the media themselves do. Mistakenly assuming these premises
to represent Western policy, they draw what would be the logical conclusion: that we are their enemy. If Russia does in turn become
an enemy again, the media will have been a major cause of it.
Second, effects on Western policy-making are just as damaging. Instead of helping the Western governments do their thinking,
the media block out most of the space for it. They make it harder for the West to think out loud about such matters as how
to build active alliance relations with Russia, or how to overcome the remaining Cold War standoffs. They make it harder to follow
a steady course where cooperation has been agreed, They have done much to cause the West to be an unreliable partner for Russia,
an unreliability that democrats in Russia noted with profound regret throughout the 1990s. They prioritize conflicting interests
over shared interests, encouraging every minor divergence of interest to grow into a major opposition. Their audience ratings flourish
on conflict; and no longer fearing it as risking war or nuclear incineration, they promote it shamelessly.
If we end up with a new Cold War -- and the risk is becoming a real one -- it won't be a small thing. It would mean a nuclear
superpower once again ranged against us and the world plunged back into a bipolar disorder, only in more unstable conditions. In
that case, the media will no doubt turn around and denounce as "reckless" those who carry out their painful duties in the conflict.
The truly reckless ones, however, will have been those in this era who so freely did so much to bring it on.
My personal views are close to views expressed by Anatoly Karlin in About
Da Russophile
As regards Russian politics, I make no secret that I'm a pro-Putin conservative. That said, my views are moderate – while
Western media coverage of Russia may be woefully biased and frequently malicious, there are certainly plenty of things
to criticize about Russia and Russians.
However, they must be grounded in in statistics, an appreciation of the viewpoints of ordinary Russians, and a judicious comparative
perspective (which is NOT equivalent to "moral relativism" or "whataboutism" as many of the more hardcore Russophobe propagandists
claim).
I think that the Western MSM fails on all three counts:
Their journalists tend to obfuscate facts and concrete numbers with rumors and assumptions;
they share their biases with those of the liberal opposition who are their most frequent interlocutors, and reflect an ignorance
of the broad ideological diversity across Russian politics and media;
and they frequently condemn Russia for things that just as prevalent or even more so in countries considered Western and democratic.
This blog concerns with calling them out on their lies. As the one-time Guardian chief editor C.P. Scott once said, "Comment
is free but facts are sacred." While his newspaper has retreated from this vision in practice, I maintain that it's the most elegant
encapsulation of what real journalism (and punditry, blogging, etc) should all be about.
...I consider Charles de Gaulle to have done a great job, and consider Putin to be a comparable figure in vision and stature.
Outside obvious "Lebensraum" motives, it looks like western
hate towards Russia rests on some deep inadequacy syndrome. Russia is supposed to be some has-been power that is now of no consequence,
yet it gets way more attention than such a worthless state would merit. The amount of negative coverage since
Sochi Olympics is bordering on war hysteria. That's
dangerous pass as ideas became material things when they penetrate deep into conscience of nation. Hate eventually tends to materialize.
The amount of negative coverage since
Sochi Olympics is bordering on war hysteria. That's dangerous pass as ideas became material things when they penetrate deep
into conscience of nation. Hate eventually tends to materialize.
Russophobia as persistent policy of the US government and US media. And all this talk about Russia aggressiveness, and carefully
orchestrated related war hysteria in MSM is pure projection. It is the USA which is the most aggressive international player on the
world stage.
Russophobia is the unofficial but persistent set of behavioral patterns of the US government and US media. It is clear that US tried
to weaken and possibly dismember Russia out of geopolitical considerations which represents a real threat to the US world hegemony.
This idea on which the US elite is hell bent since end of WWII and there were even plans to bomb Russia just after end of WWII.
It is the only military power that can annihilate large part of the continental USA, But there is something deeper here. It is also
an attempt to unify nation, which under neoliberalism became much less coherent whole and in which 99% of the population hates the top
1% and the level of this hate is increasing, especially in minorities and inner cities.
Russophobia is a crucial part of the US foreign policy. In this respect the US foreign policy is so
messianic that it reminds me Soviet
foreign policy (with the substitution of "triumph of democracy" for "triumph of communism") and I wonder if the USSR really was a defeated
party in the Cold War. This mentality of "export of revolution" is the integral part of mentality of the US elite. The difference with
Trotskyism, if exists, is minor, and the key difference between Trotskyism and the US flavor of messianism probably is connected with
the smell of oil which radically increases the urge to democratize a particular country. In any case attempt to export democracy in
Russia never stopped since 1991 and under Yeltsin were so successful that the country lost more in industrial production then during
the second World War and poverty became a norm for more then 50% of the population.
Carthago delenda est(Carthage
must be destroyed) attitude exists partially because the Western elites hate resource nationalists independently whether those
nationalists are leftist or conservative. Fighting resource nationalists tooth-and-nail is an important, may be even critical part of
neoliberal doctrine. The latter is a
civic religion in the USA. That means the Russophobia in the
USA has strong religious component, and is supported by 500 pound gorilla of the US elite propaganda machine. In other words there is
a strong, consistent tendency of demonization of Russia (Paul Starobin,
The National Interest Blog,
August 28, 2014):
In any case, our taste for a country-favorable or unfavorable-shouldn't dictate our foreign policy, which is properly shaped by
a cool calculation of our national interest. On these terms, America is right to resist Russia if Putin seems truly bent on bullying
his way to a redrawn map of Europe, but also right to try to keep working with Russia on matters of mutual concern such as Islamic
militancy. And that same calculation will hold when Putin, as must happen eventually, exits the Kremlin, willingly or unwillingly,
whether replaced by a new autocrat or a more democratic figure. Today's heightened tension between the United States and Russia,
conceivably the first chapter of a new cold war, with Europe as ambivalent as ever about its role, underscores that Russia is likely
to remain one of America's most vexing and formidable diplomatic challenges for a long time to come.
So the future of the presentation of Russia as a hodgepodge of unflattering stereotypes seems bright. The naive liberal notion
that the world has a teleological disposition toward a progressive end-if only holdouts like Russia would get with the program-is
deeply entrenched. Headlines datelined in Russia-on corrupt oligarchs, or on control-freak KGB-generation political operators-will
continue to nourish sweeping criticism of Russians, from their leaders on down, as primitive and psychologically ill. Probably
no other nation is so easy (or so safe) to caricature.
And the "Russia Is Doomed" syndrome is bound to survive because Russia, alas, still matters. The object of such concentrated anxiety
over the centuries, far from heading down a path to obscurity, remains a global force and impossible to ignore. So the worries will
live on, too, as will the sublimated wish to efface Russia. But perhaps the good news for the critics is precisely that Russia is
not about to go away. They will have plenty of grist for their mill for decades to come.
The issue is whether comprador elites subservient to the US are in power, or more nationalistic "national sovereignty" guys. It is
true that a nationalist elite can be as predatory as a comprador elite, but a reasonable degree of national sovereignty is a prerequisite
for social justice and it is difficult to raise standard of living if your resources are owned by transnationals. The latter automatically
became above the law and do what they want with impunity.
The Russophobic views on Russia can be summed up in three words: "There is no life there !" This simple formula invoke the whole
complex system of "corrupt journalism patterns" and
powerful propaganda mechanisms polished during 45 years of Cold War. Those journalistic patterns
causes most western journalists (not without help of their political handlers as independent journalism in the USA is a joke) treat
Russia as a failed state. Not simply a country that temporary dropped out of the world civilization, but the country is doomed to such
a drop by the several immanent features such as "national character", climate, landmass, religion, history, etc.
From Dr. MacFaul quotes above it is clear that in the American media and among American politicians Russia occupies a marginal position.
After the Soviet Union is gone, they mostly cares about getting assets on pennies per dollar (behaviour of criminals like Mr. Browder,
whom McFaul loves so much, exemplifies such an attitude) and to lesser extent about Russia military capabilities, which are still a
risk. Although I doubt that.
From the typical US behavior it looks like American politicians are not really interested in any other aspect of Russian situation,
other then energy resources (Khodorkovsky
is a new saint in the USA, probably for his failed attempt to sell Russia oil resources to US companies). And he is new puppet in the
show of finding the possibilities of regime change and installing a puppet regime as they
unsuccessfully tried in 2011-2012. They still
miss Yeltsin drunk regime and Gaidar-Chubais neoliberal gang, which almost converted Russia into
kleptocracy from which Putin tried gradually to extract it with
great and not always successful efforts.
It all comes down to a set of cliché: Russia is corrupt (while in reality this is a immanent feature of all neoliberal regimes and
first of all the USA, the most corrupt
neoliberal regime in existence) , does not respect human rights (unlike Saudis) and does not play by the rules (unlike Libya rebels),
is not democratic (unlike Qatar). Russia seems to them so weak and uninteresting, not worthy of a real partnership dialogue. And is
arrogant enough not to agree with the status of vassal so she needs to be taken care of:
"To promote liberty requires first the containment and then the elimination of those forces opposed to liberty, be they individuals,
movements, or regimes. " - M. McFaul, The Liberty Doctrine: Reclaiming the purpose of American power. Policy Review April
& May 2002 The Liberty Doctrine Hoover Institution
Such an ungrateful jerks, who jailed Dick Cheney best friend Khodorkovsky, squeezed this perfectly honest guy, exemplary "the
largest portfolio investor in Russia, British citizen William Browder" (Who, BTW, was the USA citizen until recently, but suddenly
changed his mind) and so on and so forth. They should be "regime changed". It is like the relationship between schoolchildren, when
a bully see a threat on the school yard and acts preemptively.
The first thing that surprise me is a very well "coordinated" level of Russophobia demonstrated by Western MSM. The degree of Russophobia
in Western press varies very little be it Guardian, or NYT, or BBC or WashPost. As financial oligarchy controls the MSM you can't expect
anything different. They act as a pack of dogs. Typical level is treating Russian as forever damned barbarians. Slightly more advanced
is treating Russia a legitimate playground for testing the controversial socio-economic doctrines like shock therapy and a land were
any foreign crook is entitled to get rich fast (like
Browder did ).
But the essence is the same, no right for "national sovereignty", no right for any "special way". Those concepts are simply outside
a typical Western press journalists "template" that their editors enforce.
Ridiculous comments populate the blogs, the op eds and the comment sections of most sites. But what unsettles me more is the
rabid Russian phobia (call it "Russophobia") which populates the American press (liberal/conservative).
We never see things from the Russian side. It is always Putin who is up to no good, Vladimir, the monster, the balding fool
with no shirt flexing his muscles. This is not the Cold War, yet we have not shed our Cold War biases.
Russophobia is a form of racism and studies of other forms of racism such as anti-Semitism are applicable here.
It is a prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Russian people as an ethnic, religious, or racial group. In Baltic
states it is close to regime of Apartheid. In Ukraine it has a form of
suppression of Russian language and culture
I have an impression on the personal level sincere and acute Russophobia (not to be mixed with Russophobia as a official line ) can
be a compensation mechanism (classic Adorno). I am not talking here about ideological prostitution typical for MSM journalists. But
on individual level it looks like projection not that different from other national bigotry and the undisputable and provable fact is
that the USA and, especially, Great Britain MSM serves as an "Incubator of hatred" toward Russia. Of course this also tells something
very important about the US/GB governments.
I suspect that those who adopt Russophobia position not for money (let's call them "sincere Russophobes") have a personality of sectants/fanatics
in a very deep sense of this word. Or like Eric Hoffer called them "True Believers" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer).
For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both
by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image. And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it
is well that we should know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities.
In a way sincere Russophobe's are almost extinct minority (but still can be found among Ukrainian nationalists ;-).
There a legion of "Russophobes for money". People who are profiting personally from Russophobia nonsense they spew. This is common
among all those people who are far from the sharpest tools form the box. As a result they try to occupy a niche that is still available
and earn living in such a disgusting way. At best they are average with very few exceptions (Belkovski might be one exception).
In a way we can view it as a survival tactic of people with mediocre talent in conditions of high competition. Similar displacement
into obscure niches can be observed for mediocre people in other professions.
This "Russophobia for money" is common among all those people who are far from the sharpest tools form the box. As a result they
try to occupy a niche that is still available and earn living in such a disgusting way.
"Russophobia for money" is common among all those people who are far from the sharpest tools form the box. As a result
they try to occupy a niche that is still available and earn living in such a disgusting way.
Cold War II is rooted not in Ukrainian event (The EuroMaydan coup d'état was organized
by the USA and Western powers; Crimea was only a pretext) but is closely connected with the neocon attempts to slow down the pace of
Russia modernization and secure Russia status as resource vassal of the USA. Here is a part of discussion from Kremlin Stooge that touch
this theme in relation to Skolkovo techno-park.
This is a very apt comment and I wish that your observation comes true. But the problem is that as you :
"The forces arrayed against Russia are sufficiently formidable and sufficiently unrelenting "
First of all the West is rich enough to finance substantial fifth column, especially fifth column media (official $70 millions
for support of NGO and "alternative" press is just a tip of iceberg). That's the essence of neo-colonialism do nothing
new here. Also a large part of elite is already linked to the West and is not interested in any confrontation. Nothing new here
too.
So the discussion about what level of state capitalism is beneficial (or where Medvedev should stop with his "second liberalization")
is complex and far from purely technical one. External forces should be taken into account and once in a while liberalization
companies to placate the West are not completely bad idea no matter how you view neoliberalism: state capitalism requires periodic
"purges" (Stalin well understood that) and "liberalization" and, especially "fight with corruption" provides perfect
pretext for purges. If one looks at some Medvedev's actions from this angle and you might well come to conclusion that it might
be not complete sell-off but a more complex game.
In situation when you need to purge excesses of state capitalism West can serve as a natural ally and in such situation slogan
of cat Leopold "Rebyata davayte zhit' druzhno" (Let's be friends) suddenly became politically viable at least among the
pro-Western part of the elite. And the idea of periodic moving the pendulum from "higher statism" to "higher
private enterprise support" in order to avoid stagnation, say, each seven-ten year period is not completely absurd. The
main question is whether the process runs out of control or not.
Another possible contention point is that sooner of later oil flow will start diminishing and with it revenues will also start
dropping. Currently there are too few industries that can replace the flow the oil dollars. Attempt to revitalize some of the
existing heavy industries under the flag of liberalization, if done clever is not a bad idea.
And as much as everybody here hates neoliberalism it is very clear about who should be the victim and provides an ideological
justification for cruel actions against own population. Like Bolshevism, it proved to be an extremely potent weapon of convincing
population to act against their own economic interests (see
What's the matter with Kansas for details).
Perfect tool for the brainwashing "peasants" if you wish, very important when "Pryanikov sladkih vsegna ne hvataet na vseh"
(Okudzhava ).
April 13, 2011 at 8:50 pm I believe the oil money will go on for some time yet. Current practices are sloppy and inefficient,
and more oil could be realized with better, more modern techniques, as well as new discoveries coming online. However, an early
start on overhauling general business practices would be time and money well spent.
Medvedev should draw a lesson from Skolkovo. This is a project he has personally sponsored and touted as Russia's official
debut in the high-tech sector. Western response, overall, has been withering and contemptuous, although some major
commercial figures (such as Microsoft) have offered early investment optimism. Collective opinion seems to be that Russia
will use the new tech city as a base from which to steal foreign technology secrets from investors, or that it will be a dismal
failure because Russians have no real ideas of their own. The west is likely to greet other initiatives by Medvedev in
the same manner – hearty laughter, followed by offers to come in and make western-style changes for him, in exchange for certain
considerations.
You are right: Skolkovo is fuzzy (what exactly is "high-tech") initiative as first of all Medvedev can't abolish brain-drain
and that what will happens with the most talented researchers. The only realistic bait he has is blocking the companies from entering
Russian market unless they provide considerable degree of localization and require that some fraction of research be performed
in such parks. That's a variant of policy that China successfully used. But if Russia joins WTO, tariff barriers to protect domestic
producers in vital sectors will be more difficult to erect.
At the same time autarky does not work either. So maneuvering between those Scylla of globalization and Charybdis of autarky
requires top political skills from the captain of the ship.
Some sectors of Russian heavy industry already are proved abroad and products already have some competitive advantage and export
markets. That's where this comparative advantage needs to be preserved and enhanced with help of techno-parks. State subsidized
R&D is really important here and can be provided via small university based local techno parks. This would an excellent employment
opportunity for most talented students who otherwise might emigrate and such parks not necessary need any foreign participation.
This is especially important if company is partially state owned, as this along with having reps at the board that protects the
investment. OK, I would agree, that it's not necessary need to be people on minister level. It would be sad if he really wants
not to reform or improve, but to dismantle state capitalism.
The real problem here that without oil revenue Russia gets into zugzwang. Hopefully, as you noted, that will not be soon.
Yes, you're right about Skolkovo; I did a piece on it awhile back (here)
and Chinese tech parks were cited as an example. It's funny how the west is all gaga over China, and just brushes off the fact
that China has a considerably more predatory business model than does Russia; China shamelessly raids the west for business
information and constantly tests them for weaknesses which might be exploited. But, obtusely, it's Russia that's held
up as the consummate corporate raider.
I believe if Russia were allowed to join the WTO, fewer barriers would be necessary. There's no reason foreign companies shouldn't
have to contribute to the local economy, but they should receive tradeoffs as well such as low corporate tax rates, and that was
one of the considerations. Medvedev seems determined that Skolkovo will succeed, while some elements in the west are just as determined
it will be a failure. We'll see. Russia is a world leader in medical research, and I understand that will be a big part of Skolkovo
as well.
It is difficult to say where Putin's brand of mixture of neoliberal and state capitalism get him and Russian people. I would say
that the answer is "reserved no". Currently Russia, while opposing the US hegemony does not provide an alternative economic model. And
that's the weakness of "Putinism".
Un amable lector de este blog ha realizado un resumen en inglés de nuestro artículo Las catedrales del kremlin y el capitalismo
multipolar; es un resumen diferente al que nosotros hubiéramos hecho, pero de interés sin duda alguna. Ha sido publicado como apoyo
a una pregunta en un coloquio con el economista ruso Mikhail Khazin organizado por The vineyard of the saker. Publicaremos aquí la
respuesta.
Question: Does Russia represent an alternative to the current western economic/social model? Or is this view an illusion based
only on the conflict between some traditional vs. post-modern values? / Arturo
For context to the question I will provide a translation / paraphrase / summary of some key points in the following article Las
catedrales del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar
The article contains and numbers many more points (36 in total) but I have translated/summarized only the first 14 (the
rest is provided is a very raw translation --NNB)
Moscow cannot defeat the American plans – i.e. the Anglo Zionist world elite – without contradicting the class interests
of its own elites (Russian oligarchs): This is impossible because the system of sanctions and the blocking of access to their
accounts and assets in the West generates such contradictions in the Russian power elites that, in practice, it prevents them
from reacting adequately; it puts them on their knees before the America.
Russia *could* resist those plans, since it possesses the strength, sense of identity, historical memory and material
resources to do so. But in order to do so, its ruling elites would have to take measures that would affect their own class status
within both the Russian system and the international system. And we can see that these are measures they are not willing
to take. On the other hand, the Anglo Zionists suffer no such internal contradiction. Quite the opposite, in fact: Their own
interest as the supporting base of the globalist hyperclass necessarily forces them to maintain the challenge to the end.
By the term Anglo Zionists, in this analysis, we mean the dominant power group whose territorial and military base resides
in the United States, and whose center originates in the historical and social links of the Anglo-American oligarchies, branching
off to other historical central metropolis in Europe or other power centers in different parts of the world.
The concept is made up of two elements that must be explained: the first, the "anglo" reference, has to do with the North
American British connection [...] the second, the "zionist" reference, has to do with the interconnection among the economic and
financial power groups that maintain various kinds of links with Israel. It is not so much a reference to ethnic origin, but rather
to orientations as groups or lobbies of political and economic interests. A good part of this Zionist component consists of people
who are neither Israelis nor Jews, but who feel identified with the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, Britain and other countries.
Thus the term "zionist" referees here to an ideology, not to an ethnic origin.
The Anglo elites on both sides of the Atlantic have evolved from being national elites to being the executive base of
a world Hyperclass made up of individuals capable of exerting a determining influence in the most powerful nation, the United
States.
The result of the Anglo Zionist line of attack is that the contradiction and internal struggle is now occurring in Moscow
between those who have already chosen to sell out and those who have not yet found the time to realize that a multipolar global
capitalism is not viable.
In this context, recovering Crimea was a mirage, an illusion.
If we compare the implications of the Maidan coup in Kiev with the liberation of Crimea, we see that the strategic defeat
implicit in losing Ukraine as an ally is of such magnitude that everything else pales by co s (all of them) in Kiev was so gigantic
that its implications are frightening. It was either a failure or something even worse. In any case, the Crimea affair was merely
a small episode in a confrontation that Russia is losing.
Russia arrived very late at modern capitalism, and that is why its current elite will be unable to occupy a space among
the globalist elite without paying the necessary toll, which is none other than renouncing its territorial power base – its
country and its access to and control of its energy resources and raw materials.
Stubbornly maintaining the dispute in trying to obtain a multi-polar capitalism, leads necessarily to a intra-capitalist confrontation,
as it did in 1914-1918. And because of the nature of the current actors, nuclear powers … it brings the conflict to 2.0 war versions
(color revolutions)
All attempts by Russia to develop a hypothetical line of response based on similar strategies (i.e. mobilizing a social response
based on discontent) have no future, because Russia does not represent an alternative social model, not even in the realm
of Illusion of Hope. It can only elicit some empathy from those who reject the American domination, but here the class contradictions
come into play again, because it is not enough to oppose Washington merely on political-military grounds, since the key to
global power resides in the financial and military structures that enable global control and plunder: World Trade Organization,
IMF, Free Trade agreements, World Bank, NATO… these are entities in relation to which Russia only shows its displeasure at
not being invited to the table as an equal, not accepting that because it arrived late at modern capitalism, it must play a secondary
role. On the other hand, Russia is ignoring the deep contempt, bordering on racism, that things Slavic generate among Anglo Zionist
elites.
In order to be able to fight the 2.0 versions of war that are engineered today, an alternative social model is needed.
Alternative not only in regard to the postmodern vs. traditional sets of values, but fundamentally in regard to the social model
that stems from the modes of production. In the postmodern vs. traditional conflict, Russia tends to align with the most reactionary
values. And in regard to the social struggle, they don't want to enter that fray because they renounced it long ago. They renounced
the entire Soviet Union, which they destroyed from within.
The contradictions and the dialectical nature of reality have their own logic, however. Thus, a coup in Kiev and the widespread
appearance of Nazi symbols in the streets of Ukraine was all that it took to induce a spontaneous reaction in the Slavic world.
The popular resistance in the Donbass took strong root thanks to the historic memory of the people's of the old USSR and its war
against fascism.
If Russia were to abandon Novorossia to the oligarchs and their mafias, the world's "left" – or whatever remains of it - would
come to scorn post-Soviet Russia even more than it already does. In the months following the brave action in Crimea and the heroic
resistance in the Donbass, many people around the world looked to Moscow in search of some sign that it would support the anti-fascist
and anti-oligarchic resistance, even if only as an act of self-defense by Moscow against the globalist challenge. If it finally
abandons Novorossia, the price in terms of loss of moral prestige will be absolute.
A support of the left has not been sought, but that is a collateral consequence of the character of class struggle open that
has been given in the Donbas, where Russia has been forced to provide some assistance that would prevent the genocide at the hands
of the fascist Ukrainian.
Cuando say left, we refer logically to the one who has expressed their support to the struggle of people in the Donbas, as
it is very difficult to consider the "left" to those who have preferred to remain silent or to have directly been complicit in
the assault, and the coup in Kiev.
The degradation of the left as politically active social force is very intense, their structures are embroiled in the collapse,
or in the confusion, when not literally corrupt. Then related to both socialist parties since 1914 and the communists, at least
from the time of fracture of 1956. The social changes experienced in Europe with the systems of welfare state, based on the elevation
of the standard of living of the working population and the obtaining of social peace by sharing the power with the trade unions
are at the base of the post-industrial society and the resulting profound changes of values.
The suicide of the USSR in 1989-93 marked a brutal global change , in which the balance which was preserved during the cold
war was broken. That led to the capitalist elite in the west, which we are calling the Anglo-Zionists, to the suspension of the
social pact (forced abandonment of New Deal), that gave rise to the welfare state and the emergence stark reality of a global
power of capitalists without systemic opposition . Today the whole neoliberal globalization system of capitalism is in danger
by the depletion of the natural resources. And to sustain this mode of production, they need to speed up territorial domination
in the form of control and access to resources of other countries. Now there no space in the global system for spaces, which are
managed autonomously even to a certain level.
The system of global domination, capitalism, ruling elites with a territorial basis in the area of Anglo-American, global
parasitic Hyperclass and depletion of resources, as well as cannibalization of the other nations, in the midst of troika of crisis
of climate change, peak of the energy and raw materials shortages. those three factors that challenge the current globalization
framework ... And the crisis of Novorossia, been demonstrated both impotence and the lack of real political autonomy of Russian
elite with the respect to the dominant power in neoliberal worlds order..
The new citizen movements in the western world are not so much resistance movements as samples of the discontent of the middle
classes in precarious position of marginalization and/or social trance. This protest led to a "Maidans" which are not permanent
and does not question the basis of the system. The participants seems to believe that it is possible to restore the old good world
of the welfare state.
The western movements are brainwashed by messages emanating from the headquarters of Democratic party of North America, the
propaganda anarcho-capitalist and the various networks of ideological interference, are managing to break the bonds of historical
memory that unite the struggles of the past with the present, de-ideologize the struggles and conflicts and to deny the tension
left and right, isolating the militants -- or simple citizens who feel identified with the values of the left - of the masses
who are suffering in the first place casualisation. At the heart of this new "left" are leaders that are co-opted voices, pseudo-intellectuals
who destroy the words and empty of content of key concepts in a way that the alienation of the masses demonstrate at the language
itself, thus preventing putting a real name to social process and things, and to identify the social phenomena.
Viva to Russia, which the only country which eve in a weak form decided to fight neoliberal world order and position itself
as an anti-imperialist force... It is interesting to observe the current great moral confusion in political landscape of the societies
in decay. Confusion which have been stimulated by Moscow actions. As the result some the far-right groups that are simultaneously
anti-US that anti-Russian now support Moscow. Also some part of Russia far-right political groups got the sympathy and support
of factions of the anti EU far right forces in France, the Nazis of the MSR in Spain, and from small groups of euro-asianists.
This line of political affiliation will allow them to simply join the Russia failure [to find alternative to monopolar neoliberal
capitalism] and might well discredit then more profoundly in the future.
The euro-asianists forces technically speaking are reactionary forces, neoliberal forces which is comparable to the worst
of the worst in the western world. Moreover, they do not have any way to solve the main contradictions that arise in the current
neoliberal model in the terms of class and dominance of Anglo Zionist global elite.
Euro-Asianism is just a suitable ideology for the construction of Russian national idea for those who seeks to achieve lease
to life for Russia sovereignty on the world stage. It is the actual proof that Russia has come too late to globalised capitalism
and fascism...
Huttington and his war of civilizations cynically exploit this confrontation on Anglo Zionist elite and newcomers, redefining
it along the idea of the clash of civilizations which avoid using the notion of class and thus is ideologically false. Alexander
Duguin who promote similar ideas quite seriously just shows the degree of degeneration of the Russian intelligentsia, which oscillates
between serving as comprador class to the global Anglo Zionist elite and the repetition (as a farce, and with 75 years of delay
) of fascist reactionary revolutions in Western Europe, which were phenomenon of the interwar period (rexistas in Belgium, Croix
de feu in France, CruzFlechados in Hungary, Requetés and Falangistas in Spain).
The globalist elite offered a solution formulated in class terms, as it could not be another way: in the best cases, they
proposes the co-optation to a handful of members of the Russian elite as deserving members of the new global Hyperclass, but this
path is opened only the very very rich, and the pre-condition is the delivery of the country to plunder, where the global elite
certainly would have need of some compradors which will be more or less adequately compensated depending on their achievements
and sacrifices in the name of global neoliberal domination.
The part of the power elite of Russia, which managed to expel the western compradors of the Yeltsin era, and rein in the oligarchs
then, had tried with some success to regain control of the territory of the country. The illusion of the members of this part
of the power elite -- basically the security services, both civil and military, and various synergies of those with the military-industrial
lobby -- is that it would be enough to neutralize the Russian fifth column of the Anglo Zionists to take back control of their
territorial base of power. this idea is going to be shredded into pieces when it enter into contradiction with the reality of
the class struggle and interests of the elite at the global level. Russia is, for its size, influence, and resources, so huge
that a line of action based on the defense of its sovereignty strategic enters in collision with the global power of neoliberalism.
And that why it attracts disproportional reaction of the Anglo Zionists
Supporters of Anglo Zionists that are ready to consent to a German-Russian alliance or Russia-EU alliance that give the viability
of a idea of mutually beneficial co-development of both Russia and Europe are forgetting that such an action would require European
sovereignty. Which is was non-existent iether on the level of the EU, or on the level of member states. The penetration of the
Atlantism in Europe is already systemic. In the old European states there are still ancient national traditions, which were based
on the basis of cultural, industrial, economic, and political identity. And they still run strong. But in the current situation
for such states there no space for the sovereignty as the dominant power bloc in the national elite as well as in EU elite are
Atlantists. Where this situation takes the Russian elite and the Russian state without confrontation? A confrontation that they,
on the other hand are not willing and are not able to pursue.
The multi-polar capitalist world had its lifespan which come to an end (exploded) in 1914. In 2014, the globalization of the
elites and the capital is of such magnitude that no serious resistance is possible on the basis of some capitalist model. In those
conditions the idea of Russian elite ability to enforce change to multipolar version of the currently monopolar neoliberal world
is doomed to be a failure.
Zbigniew Brezinsky has raised things crudely and openly, unlike the ("fake") supporters of perestroika, and their current
heirs in Russia. Brezinsky know how to think in terms of the class contradiction and knows perfectly well that the Russian
oligarchy has directed its monetary flows abroad, moved families abroad, and moved their investments abroad. That means that
Anglo Zionistscan disrupt any claim of sovereignty over the territory and resources by simply pressing the local neoliberal
elite, giving them to choose between their interests as a class and their illusionary desire for sovereignty. Because in a globalized
world, with its brutal fight for the natural resources there is no possibility of maintaining both, except what can be achieved
in terms of direct anti-imperialist struggle. There is no space for the national bourgeoisies in the XXI century. You can only
have sovereignty if it is posed in terms of a rupture with the actually existing neoliberal order of global capitalism, which,
in its core is Anglo Zionistsglobalization. This break does not have to be forced, but in terms of scientific analysis
of the social processes is a logical consequence of following this path one way or the other. To claim sovereignty over their
own resources and territory inevitably leads to confrontation, and logical needs a break up and confront the Anglo Zionist empire.
If you really want to achieve the goal. And that fact imposes the logic of the relationships and balance of power in the world
today.
The claims of the BRIC countries -- to the extent that you do not question them -- is that they have an alternative model
to the dominant neoliberal capitalism model (Ango Zionist globalization with the center in the USA) are doomed to be a failure.
The efforts of the BRIC countries can generate a lot of noise and discomfort for the West, but they can not break the global neoliberal
system. Those countries are rightfully fearful of their budget balances -- which are very fragile. It can be even said that they
are on their way to implosion sooner or later, due to the unbalanced structure of their internal classes, including first of all
their own elite.
The claim that it is possible to achieve the multipolar capitalist world (which Russia defends) and which led to current Ukrainian
crisis without confrontation is false. As soon as Russia wanted to return to the global chessboard. as an independent player,
they instantly saw opponents attacking weak elements of their defense at the borders. Ukraine has been a defeat for Russia and
the Crimea is not a adequate compensation for loss of Ukraine. Now Novorossia is being sacrificed precisely because the class
contradictions that have emerged in Moscow and lack of desire of Russian elite to go the bitter end.
The situation in the Donbas / Novorossia clearly shows the resignation of Moscow to the victory, and their desire to avoid
the clash with neoliberal world order. The fact is that Royal Dutch Shell has already begun the fracking in the Donbas, the coup
regime in Kiev are already internationally accepted without reservations, the truce imposed in Novorossia has brought to its knees
the armed resistance to junta. All this leads way to deliver Novorossia to the hands of mafias sponsored by the local oligarchs
with friends in Kiev and Moscow.
Statement that the destiny of Russia was played in the Donbas is something more than a phrase, It is a claim based on a reality,
as the defeat of Novorossia would be the proof that Moscow had not the will to struggle. The betrayal of the fighters and the
hopes of Novorossia is the acceptance of the defeat and might lead in the future to the victory to the Moscow Maidan, the same
alliance of compradors and nationalists using which as storm troopers the globalist elite achieved their goal in Ukraine. If Novorossia
is defeated, they can expect being able to push a puppet into the Kremlin the same way. And not without reason. This summer, the
heroic struggle of the militia of the Donbas was the key element that forced the changes of the script designed for Kiev as well
as diminished chances of successful application of the same methods in Moscow. The Minsk Agreements and the truce imposed by them
are putting Novorossia on its knees, allowing for its destruction, but this time at the hands of their allies. Sad spectacle for
the Russian security services, which were effective enough to organize the Donbas resistance, but now are useless and powerless
before the neofascist Kiev junta.
The struggle of the Donbas does not correspond to the strategic interests of the Russian elite. They have been forced to intervene
to prevent the horror of the mass murder of the population of the Donbas at the hands of the extreme right. But the dream of a
Donbas free of oligarchs and with a sovereign state, committed to social justice for workers on this Slavic land are completely
incompatible with the post-soviet status quo. Only to the extent that there is a significant faction of Russian elite aware of
the contradictions of the global neoliberal game and who put their sense of patriotism first can lead them to face the challenge
that they face. Only in this case there would be any possibility of resistance; I would say patriotic resistance, because we already
know no one at the top is able to think in terms of class.
While very unlikely - there can be a move from February to October in Novorossia. You would say impossible. But he insurrection
of the Donbas in March, logically was "February". In order to achieve victory, to take full control over the territory of Donetsk
and Lugansk needs creation of the Revolutionary Military Council and suspension of the upcoming elections. which looking to be
a smokescreen for capitulation to junta. They need to declare that they are ready to resist to the end. This output would be desperate
move, without a doubt, and would represent the equivalent of a new "October". The event which of it occurs would force Moscow
to show their cards to their own population. And perhaps it can help to generate a pulse necessary for the organization of the
fight with Anglo Zionists empire between the towers of the Kremlin. That would move the fight toward more patriotic and popular
goals, But this presuppose a lot of assumptions and first of all that such a "Kremlin tower", which is capable of emitted such
a pulse, exists. Only in this case we can talk about achieving a real sovereignty. As Vasily Záitsev in Stalingrad suggested:
"Maybe we're doomed, but for the moment we are still the masters and lords of our land." In Novorossia there are plenty of fighters
who would agree with Záitsev, but they certainly lack political direction and, now the lack the support of Kremlin.
The Russian objective is achieving a multipolar capitalism with a Russia united under a nationalist ideology based on the
manipulation of patriotic sentiment, Orthodoxy and various Slavic myths. This objective is being challenged by the reality of
the conflict, which should be defined in terms of geopolitical goals. The reality is that the Russian elite would be allowed
to control their population as they wish, provided they renounce its sovereignty over territory and resources, renounce their
physical power base, i.e. homeland. This is the nature of the challenge. Putin is mistaken if he thinks that the Grand Patriarch
has the answer in their holy books. There is not enough incense in the Kremlin cathedrals to mask that reality."
Now let's discuss attempts to demonize Putin by Western MSM. They can be understood only in context of rabid Russophobia of US neocons
and their poodles in GB and other Western countries (especially in Germany).
Being tactful of Putin is one thing that I would not criticize the US press for ;-). If only because the track record disqualify
them from lecturing, but because one simple fact: I remember how they covered the Chechen disaster and how they covered Iraq invasion
by the USA. I strongly dislike Chechen war, as do most Russians. However, it is true that Chechen fundamentalists financed by Saudis
have killed hundreds of Caucasian and Russian civilians and were a real threat to the Russian society, whereas the Iraqis were no practical
threat to the USA.
Another problem with demonizing Putin is that no one in the US political system is willing to criticize the policies of Boris Yeltsin,
which ruined the majority of Russian people, falsified elections and included criminals in his inner circle under close guidance of
the USA. Sometime it looks to me that the real Axis of Evil runs somewhere between K Street and Constitution Avenue.
And in addition most of US neocons who dominated the USA foreign policy establishment sincerely consider themselves the only game
in town. While understanding very little, or absolutely nothing about other countries. And that is statement is equally applicable to
neocons dominated MSM such as NYT and Wash Post. American exeptionalism is uniquely blinding phenomenon.
It is actually pretty sad to read the infinite low of articles written without any desire to understand the complex situation in
modern Russia. Neocons analytics in regard to Russia is nauseating propaganda. The logic behind such articles is invariably hostile.
Moscow either weak or repressive or both. If Moscow sees some processes as a threat, it is racist, if it just lets it happen, it is
weak.
No good solution for Russia ever exists according to these people. And it would be better for Russia and the rest of the world if
it disappears from the face of Earth as quickly as possible.
Another influential part of world Russophobic community are Apartheid regimes established in Baltic countries with the direct help
of the USA government and, especially, USA emigrant organizations. Western Ukraine also fit this scenario (after EuroMaidan putsch Western
Ukrainian when far right nationalists came to power).
Baltic countries refuse to provide citizenship to people of different ethnicity who lawfully lived in them during the USSR period
(which lasted half a century or so). Here is an insightful take on Russophobia from veteran Novosty journalist by Pyotr Romanov
Ability to write about Russophobia dispassionately is similar to the ability to maintain dignity when somebody unexpectedly poor
a dirty water all over your head. However, as far as possible, try to talk about this phenomenon, no offense. We will not resent
the fact that the "Russian, according to British press - the most stupid in the world." Smile at the argument that the "war against
Napoleon won the non-Russian, and lice." We will not discuss with the Japanese man in the street, which feels an antipathy to us,
among other things because all the cold storms come on the street it from Russia.
Forget about the Finns, who, according to Western opinion polls, do not love us more than any foreigners. And this at a time when,
according to domestic opinion polls, that the Finns have the highest Russian sympathies.
What to do: love evil. In short, keep yourself in hand. It is better to remember the words of George Nathaniel Curzon Marquis,
Viceroy of India and at the time the British Foreign Minister: "Every Englishman comes to Russia as Russophobe, and left as a Russophile"
This means that in the basis of antipathy towards the Russian lies ignorance and myths. Partly born of life itself, partly by skillful
professionals employed by our political opponents: there is such a thing as information warfare. And this is not limited to the Soviet
period, but can be traced since ancient times. The disappearance of the Soviet Union did not affect Russophobia much. "New Thinking",
which Gorbachev dreamed about never materialized. There is also historical memory. If we talk about ethnophobias, this is an inexhaustible
source of poisoned water.
We can present many additional examples, but even from what has been said above, it is clear that the problem is multifaceted
and so deeply ingrained in the mind of a typical Western person (to say nothing about establishment -- NNB) that for Russians it
is better to forget about an illusion that it can be cured or even drastically changed. Each countermeasure is only a palliative
solution.
Thus we should not deceive ourselves - any countermeasure is only palliative. Russophobia glow can be reduced, but to end it might
be impossible as is the case with other ethnophoibias.
However, even to lower the level of Russophobia is a difficult undertaking which requires considerable intellectual efforts and
financial investments. In addition, the Russian professionals in the field of foreign media (or propaganda, sorry for such old-fashioned
word) are long time already listed in the "red book". After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new government decided that the
professionals who know how to work with foreign media are no longer needed, everything will be done automatically: our friends Bill
and Helmut will help. In extreme cases, retired professionals can be without problems replaced by the young and energetic sneakers
merchants. It did not happen. Meanwhile, the bad image of Russia means for the country significant economic and political losses.
When it comes to Russophobia, the questions usually turns out to be a surplus, but the answers, even the most sophisticated, almost
always may be subject to reasoned criticism. This is further evidence of the complexity and ambiguity of the problem. For example,
surveys carried out by foreigners, record that in recent years the attitude to the Russian in almost all countries around the world
deteriorated. It would seem that there is nothing to rejoice, meanwhile, history has repeatedly argued that a weakened Russia is
far less negative feelings abroad than Russia on the path to recovery, when she, like Phoenix, once again rises from the ashes. Thus,
the sharp deterioration of perceptions of Russia by foreigners can simultaneously be a sign that Moscow is perusing a wrong policy,
and, conversely, that is peruse absolutely correct policy. It is difficult to sort out.
By the way, if we were talking about the West here, it is curious to see how the West steps for many centuries on the same rake.
Whenever Russia is experiencing the most difficult times, Western politicians, believing Russia is close to death, begin to seriously
talk about her vivisection, and, conversely, when the "deceased" Russia suddenly opens his eyes, the West falls into mortal fear
and hysteria. So it was during the Troubled Times, when the Poles, Swedes and British tried to split Russian lands apart. Under Tsar
Alexei Mikhailovich, when Russia was still weakened Western Europe for the sake of preserving peace in its own backyard identified
zones of expansion of the major European powers: our motherland, according to this "peace plan", was granted to the Swedes. The only
thing that did not consider the German philosopher, mathematician, lawyer and theologian, Gottfried Leibniz -- the author of this
ingenious plan -- the birth of Peter the Great. By the end of the reign of Peter Sweden ceased to be a great power, Russia become
an empire, and a Russian soldier, frightened Europe to such hiccups, from which it can not escape for a long time.
Then there was the defeat in the Crimean War, which, as it seemed to many European politicians, forever cemented lag Russian from
the outside world, but came to the liberal reforms of Alexander II, who once again raised Russia from its knees. Later there was
a First World, revolution, civil war, and those event immediately generated Churchill plan to put an end to Russia once and forever,
dismembering her to pieces. And this project also ended in failure, but instead came back scared the West Europeans almost to death,
the Soviet Union.
Finally, the collapse of the USSR has created new hopes, and the emergence of a Russian helm of Putin produced a new disappointment:
hatred intermixed with fear. Here are typical in the West, the view expressed by one of the Italian journalists: "The USSR is considered
a country, lost forever. The recent emergence of Russia as a nation state was a bolt from the sky. " And that's madam did not know
yet what order book of Russian defense enterprises in the past year increased by 61%, as recently reported by Russian President.
Thunder would be simply deafening.
In short, we are dealing with a déjà vu all over gain: the same way foreign press treated Russia in Europe and after the Troubled
Times and after the Crimean War, and after the Revolution of 1917 .
Of course, the fact that due to the fear of Russian bear whose jaws are in Europe, and the tail is located in the Far East, simultaneously
flourish Russophobia, does not make Russians happy. But I personally, if we have to choose, prefer to have a strong Russia with a
undesirable side effect in the form of Russophobia, than the Russian bear's skin over the fireplace in some western office, which
the owner, proudly showing visitors, affectionately scratching behind his ear. Without experiencing any of Russophobia!
Are there any tools that would provide the West at least a middle ground between a pathological fear of Russian and not less pathological
contempt for her? I think it is. All I will not enumerate them all. But one thing worth mentioning is mandatory. Necessary, finally,
once and for all clear the historic debris, which is really to blame Russian. We can remember, say, Russian-Polish friction because
of Katyn. The fact that Stalin's regime committed a crime, we know the whole world, but Russia, including the modern Russia, could
not find the courage to tell the whole truth about the Polish tragedy. If you want to, once again apologize, and most importantly
to pass, finally, Warsaw, all at our disposal documents. In the end, there are still living relatives of the victims, who have every
right to know how their relatives died. Why this is not done until now, I can not understand, especially because the crime is committed
not this generation, but fundamentally different, the Stalinist regime.
At the same time, giving the necessary debt, in my opinion, in any case we can not forget about our own claims. Unlike its neighbors,
we all too easy to forgive, but it does not promote respect for Russia. Yes, there was Katyn. But until it was no less terrible fate
of the Russian prisoners who fell into the hands of the Poles after the failure of the famous Tukhachevsky offensive of Warsaw. There
are undeniable evidence how they treated those prisoners, both in Russia and the West. Division of assistance to POW in Poland of
the American Union of Christian youth on October 20, 1920 noted that the Russian prisoners were kept in deplorable conditions: indoors,
totally unsuitable for housing, with no furniture, sleeping aids, and most importantly - no glass in the windows, despite the cold.
In the prisoners had no shoes, clothing, medicines, not enough medical personnel, food. All of the above, conclude U.S. observers,
leads "to the rapid extinction of prisoners of war." Really dying by the thousands. No wonder the Lviv newspaper "Forward" December
22, 1920 calls Tuchola camp a "death camp". Thus, Katyn and Tuchola stand side by side. And it is necessary to treat
this and ask the Poles of repentance for the brutal treatment of Russian. By the way, we should not have any illusion. About the
same barbaric way the Red Army prisoners of war were treated, Baltic states treated the White Army Yudenich forces which retreat
to their land. They allowed to passed then through the border in small groups, then confiscated all the weapon, after another mile
all the valuables, and then clothes. So they beat is on the based on ideology but simply because they were Russians. Defending our
ancestors who were subjected to abuse, we are seeking not only justice but also of self-respect. Man, do not mindful of kinship,
respect is not deserved.
However, even if it has been said above about Russophobia, only a small drop in the cap or a smallest piece of a huge iceberg.
In addition, there is still the main problem, without deal with which all the fighting Russophobia is meaningless. This problem
is ourselves: our standard of living, our culture, the development of our civil society, our internal and foreign policy, our military
and economic power. Weak are always subject to humiliation: that is, unfortunately, human nature.
Any countermeasures -- although without them it situation might get worse -- no matter how sophisticated and skilled as they are,
still no substitute for that, I'm talking about. So, first of all, to deal with all of us Russophobia requires a healthy and strong
Russia. The fact that in this country and to live pleasantly, of course.
The old wisdom says, to be respected around, start to start to respect himself - a thing that you have created with their own
hands.
And there, staring, reconsider their views on the Russian, even touchy Finns.
The Western media even before the Ukrainian Maidan was broadcast events in Russia exclusively in a negative way. Attempts are being
made to discredit almost all Russian initiatives and projects, ranging from the Olympics to the elections of the President, etc. For
the implementation of anti-Russian propaganda standard techniques of "projection" polished in color revolutions were used. That includes
activization via NGOs of the opposition media and opposition figures within the country. The set of "prisoners of conscience"
was created from academics, businessmen and politicians, who, for various reasons, wished to leave Russia for the West.
Corrupt businessmen, who escaped to the West to avoid prosecution in Russia became prisoner of conscience and political oppositionist
on the moment they cross the border. Anti-Russian propaganda aims in stressing civilizational, cultural, intellectual backwardness of
Russia compared "advanced and enlightened" West.
The purpose of this propaganda "strangulation" of Russia is instituting "regime change" and bring to power the second generation
of compradors. As well as further dismemberment of its territory. Some forms on internal conflict are supported as a part of destabilization
strategy. With the ultimate goal of second partitioning of Russia and the emergence of new quasi-independent States.
To understand the coverage of Russia in western MSM one needs to understand the mechanisms of war propaganda. The latter is guided
by the following postulates well known since the WWI (Falsehood
in War-Time):
1. We do not want war.
2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
3. The enemy is the face of the devil.
4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interest.
5. The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
6. The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
7. We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
8. Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
9. Our cause is sacred. "The ages-old 'God bless America' is playing once more."
10. All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.
This topic is discussed in more details elsewhere, but a good starting point is the book
Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (1965/1973) by French philosopher, theologian, legal scholar, and sociologist Jacques
Ellul. This book was one the first attempt to study propaganda from a sociological approach as well as a psychological one. It presents
a taxonomy for propaganda methods, including such paired opposites as
political–sociological,
vertical–horizontal,
rational–irrational,
agitation–integration.
During World War II, Ellul was a leader in the French resistance after being discharged as a professor from French universities by
the Vichy regime. After France's liberation, he became professor at the University of Bordeaux. He authored 58 books and numerous articles
over his lifetime, the dominant theme of which has been the threat to human freedom created by modern technology. In 1947, Ellul was
appointed chair of law and social history at the Institut d'études politiques that increased his reputation as a social and political
philosopher which led to the publication of his works in the United States. Here is an abridged Wikipedia summary:
...."The Institute for Propaganda Analysis, inspired by Harold Lasswell" defined propaganda as "the expression of opinions or
actions carried out deliberately by individuals or groups with a view to influencing the opinions or actions of other individuals
or groups for predetermined ends and through psychological manipulations".[3]
This definition seemed more accurate and was supported by others such as Goebbels, a German propagandist, who stated, "We
do not talk to say something, but to obtain a certain effect."[ Similarly F.C. Bartlett holds an accurate interpretation of
the goal of propaganda as not merely as an instrument to increase political understanding of events, but to obtain results through
action. Ellul supports the idea that propaganda is made primarily because of a will to action for the purpose of effectively arming
policy made by the State. Leonard Doob, an American specialist, defined propaganda in 1948 as "the attempt to affect the personalities
and to control the behavior of individuals towards desired ends."
Unending definitions show the uncertainty among specialists and the inability of definitions to encompass all that is propaganda.
Just because the term propaganda cannot be defined with any degree of precision does not mean that attempts to define it should be
abandoned.
"Very frequently propaganda is describe as a manipulation for the purpose of changing idea or opinions of making individuals
'believe' some idea or fact, and finally of making them adhere to some doctrine-all matters of the mind. It tries to convince,
to bring about a decision, to create a firm adherence to some truth. This is a completely wrong line of thinking: to view propaganda
as still being what it was in 1850 is to cling to an obsolete concept of man and of the means to influence him; it is to condemn
oneself to understand nothing about propaganda. The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke
action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action.
It is no longer to transform an opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief."
...He holds that the main concern of propaganda through psychological influence is sparking action to a desired response by
developing learned attitudes. ....
Summary of chapters
Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes is divided into five substantive chapters discussing Ellul's analysis. Introduction
Regardless of the State, propaganda should be viewed as situated at the center of the growing powers of governmental and administrative
techniques.
"Differences in political regimes matter little; differences in social levels are more important; and most important is national
self-awareness. Propaganda is a good deal less the political weapon of a regime (it is that also) than the effect of a technological
society that embraces the entire man and tends to be a completely integrated society. Propaganda stops man from feeling that
things in society are oppressive and persuades him to submit with good grace."[7] Chapter One: Characteristics of Propaganda
Modern propaganda is a technique that requires an analysis of both environment and individual to be subjected to propaganda therefore
it is based on scientific analyses of psychology and sociology. Sufficient understanding of these two areas creates the most effective
propaganda and without the scientific research of modern psychology and sociology there would be no propaganda. "Step by step the
propagandist builds the techniques on the basis of his knowledge of man, his tendencies, his desires, his needs, his psychic mechanisms,
his conditioning, and as much on social psychology as on depth psychology."[8] 1.Part One: External Characteristics
Propaganda is first and foremost concerned with influencing an individual psychologically by creating convictions and compliance
through imperceptible techniques that are effective only by continuous repetition. Propaganda employs encirclement on the individual
by trying to surround man by all possible routes, in the realm of feelings as well as ideas, by playing on his will or his needs
through his conscious and his unconscious, and by assailing him in both his private and his public life.[9] The propagandist also
acknowledges the most favorable moment to influence man is when an individual is caught up in the masses. Propaganda must be
total in that utilizes all forms of media to draw the individual into the net of propaganda. Propaganda is designed to be continuous
within the individual's life by filling the citizen's entire day. It is based on slow constant impregnation that functions over a
long period of time exceeding the individual's capacities for attention or adaptation and thus his capabilities of resistance. In
order for propaganda to maintain encirclement, it must be exerted by an organization capable of influencing psychological channels
that reach the individual. Psychological and physical actions are inseparable elements to propaganda, however, if no influence is
exerted by an organization than there can be no propaganda because it cannot operate in a vacuum. The necessity for a physical organization
limits propaganda enterprises and in order to be effective propaganda must work inside a group, principally inside a nation. Propaganda
must first organize the masses in order to propagandize within the masses. In general, propaganda is a set of methods employed by
an organized group that wants to bring about the active or passive participation in its actions of a mass of individuals, psychologically
unified through psychological manipulations and incorporated into an organization.[10] Propaganda should no longer be viewed in terms
of an orthodoxy but rather modern propaganda should be seen as an orthopraxy because it aims for participation not adherence. Participation
can be active or passive: active if propaganda has been able to mobilize the individual for action; passive if the individual does
not act directly but psychologically supports that action. 2. Part Two: Internal Characteristics The second major element that a
propagandist must understand is the environment in which the individual operates, mainly the foci of interest of the public. An understanding
of the conventional patterns and stereotypes that pre-exist in a milieu provide the propagandist with material from which to build
off. Propaganda is not able to create something out of nothing and is confined to developing pre-existing material thereby expressing
the fundamental currents of the society it seeks to influence. These currents include accepted structures such as collective sociological
presuppositions and myths that are fundamental to society.
"The Four Great Collective Sociological Presuppositions in the Modern World: 1.That an individual's
aim in life is happiness. 2.That man is naturally good. 3.That history develops in endless progress. 4.That everything is matter.
The Collective Myths: 1.of Work 2.of Happiness 3.of the Nation 4.of Youth 5.of the Hero"[11]
These currents reinforce socieand hold man's mjor convictions and propa
ganda must voice this reality. Propaganda is concerned with timeliness since an individual is only moved to action if he is pushed
towards a timely one by propaganda. Once it becomes history it inevitably becomes neutral and indifferent to the individual who is
sensitive primarily to current news. "Operational words" are used to penetrate an individual's indifference. However they lose their
value as immediacy passes as old facts are replaced by new ones. The "current events man" is carried along the current of news and
caught in the events of today, losing interest in the events of yesterday. The indifferent are apolitical and without opinion, therefore
they are outside of propaganda's grasp. Incidentally, there are also the undecided, people whose opinions are vague, who form the
majority of citizens within the collective. These citizens are the most susceptible to control of public opinion that is dictated
by propaganda. Lastly, this part discusses propaganda and truth or the ability of propaganda to relay something as true based not
on the accuracy of facts but of reality. Propaganda veils the truth with falsehoods even though lying is generally to be avoided.
3. Part Three: Categories of Propaganda Presented in this chapter is a sophisticated taxonomy for propaganda, including such paired
opposites as political-sociological, vertical-horizontal, rational-irrational, and agitation-integration.
Political vs. Sociological Propaganda:
Political Propaganda involves techniques of influence employed by a government, a party, an administration, or a pressure group
with the intention of changing the behavior of the public. The themes and objectives of this type of propaganda are of a political
nature. The goals are determined by the government, party, administration, or pressure group. The methods of political propaganda
are calculated in a precise manner and its main criteria is to disseminate an ideology for the very purpose of making various political
acts acceptable to the people.[12] There are two forms of political propaganda, tactical and strategic. Tactical political propaganda
seeks to obtain immediate results within a given framework. Strategic political propaganda is not concerned with speed but rather
it establishes the general line, the array of arguments, and the staging of campaigns.
Political propaganda reversed is sociological propaganda because the ideology is penetrated by means of its sociological
context. Propaganda, as it is traditionally known, implies an attempt to spread an ideology through the mass media of communication
in order to lead the public to a desired action. In sociological propaganda even media that are not controllable such as individual
art work, films, and writing reflect the ideology allowing for an accelerated penetration of the masses and the individuals within
them.[13]
Sociological propaganda is a phenomenon where a society seeks to integrate the maximum number of individuals into itself
by unifying its members' behavior according to a pattern, spreading its style of life abroad, and thus imposing itself on other
groups. Essentially sociological propaganda aims to increase conformity with the environment that is of a collective nature
by developing compliance with or defense of the established order through long term penetration and progressive adaptation by using
all social currents. The propaganda element is the way of life with which the individual is permeated and then the individual begins
to express it in film, writing, or art without realizing it. This involuntary behavior creates an expansion of society through advertising,
the movies, education, and magazines. "The entire group, consciously or not, expresses itself in this fashion; and to indicate, secondly
that its influence aims much more at an entire style of life."[14] This type of propaganda is not deliberate but springs up spontaneously
or unwittingly within a culture or nation. This propaganda reinforces the individual's way of life and represents this way of life
as best. Sociological propaganda creates an indisputable criterion for the individual to make judgments of good and evil according
to the order of the individual's way of life. Sociological propaganda does not result in action, however, it can prepare the ground
for direct propaganda. From then on, the individual in the clutches of such sociological propaganda believes that those who live
this way are on the side of the angels, and those who don't are bad.[15]
Vertical vs. Horizontal Propaganda: Vertical propaganda is similar to direct propaganda that aims at the individual in
the mass and is renewed constantly. However, in horizontal propaganda there is no top down structure but rather it springs up from
within the group. It involves meticulous encirclement that traps an individual involuntarily in dialectic. The individual is led
unfailingly to its adherence by talking about the dialectic until the individual discovers the answer that was set up unconsciously
for him to find. Schools are a primary mechanism for integrating the individual into the way of life.
Rational vs. Irrational Propaganda:
Propaganda is addressed to the individual on the foundation of feelings and passions which are irrational, however, the content
of propaganda does address reason and experience when it presents information and furnishes facts making it rational as well. It
is important for propaganda to be rational because modern man needs relation to facts. Modern man wants to be convinced that by acting
in a certain way he is obeying reason in order to have self justification. The challenge is creating an irrational response on the
basis of rational and factual elements by leaving an impression on an individual that remains long after the facts have faded away.
Individuals are not compelled to act based facts but rather on emotional pressure, the vision of the future, or the myth.
Agitation vs. Integration propaganda:Propaganda of agitation seeks to mobilize people in order to destroy the established
order and/or government. It seeks rebellion by provoking a crisis or unleashing explosive movements during one. It momentarily
subverts the habits, customs, and beliefs that were obstacles to making great leap forward by addressing the internal elements in
each of us. It eradicates the individual out of his normal framework and then proceeds to plunge him into enthusiasm by suggesting
extraordinary goals which nevertheless seem to him completely within reach. However, this enthusiasm can only last a short duration
so the objective must be achieved quickly followed by a period of rest. People cannot be kept at in a "state of perpetual enthusiasm
and insecurity". Rebellion is incited by the propagandist who knows that hate is one of the most profitable resources when drawn
out of an individual. Agitation propaganda is usually thought of as propaganda in that it aims to influence people to act. Integration
propaganda, on the other hand, is a more subtle form that aims to reinforce cultural norms. This is sociological in nature because
it provides stability to society by supporting the "way of life" and the myths within a culture. It is propaganda of conformity that
requires participation in the social body. This type of propaganda is more prominent and permanent, yet it is not as recognized as
agitation propaganda because it is more permanent manner. Basically, agitation propaganda provides the motive force when needed and
when not needed integration propaganda provides the context and backdrop. Chapter Two: The Condition for the Existence of Propaganda
The nature of propaganda has changed over the course of time and yet it is evident that propaganda cannot exist without a milieu.
The emergence of propaganda is interconnected with technology and scientific discoveries yet it can only appear and grow under certain
conditions. Several events have occurred that have furthered propaganda by increasing its ability in depth and discovering new methods.
Modern propaganda could not exist without the mass media or modern means of transportation which permit crowds of diverse individuals
from all over to assemble easily and frequently. 1.Part One: The Sociological Conditions
Society must contain elements of both an individualist society and a mass society. Propaganda aims to capture both the mass and
the individual at the same time through this dual type of society. A mass society is based on individuals that are reduced to ciphers
based on what they have in common to others. First conditions for growth and development of modern propaganda: it emerged in Western
Europe in the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth precisely because that was when society was becoming increasingly
individualistic and its organic structures were breaking down. Individuals without natural organic local groups are defenseless and
more likely to be caught up in a social current. On the other hand, a mass society has considerable population density in which local
structures and organizations are weak, currents of opinion are strongly felt creating a certain psychological unity, and individuals
are organized into large and influential collectives. Mass society is characterized by uniformity and material life despite differences
of environment. Once a mass society is created, public opinion will begin to play a role to help individuals form their own personal
opinion. Public opinion can only express itself through channels which are provided by the mass media of communication without which
there could be no propaganda. Yet it is important that mass media be subject to centralized control in order to successfully form
public opinion without any opposition. Again Ellul mentions that the individual must be caught in wide net of media through all channels.
Once opinion has been formed, propaganda is able to reinforce it and transform opinion into action. 2. Part Two: Objective Conditions
of Total Propaganda Propaganda thrives off of what individuals have in common with others to develop patterns of behavior and modify
cultural opinions. Total propaganda recognizes that within a nation individuals should all have in common a standard of living, a
culture, and an ideology. The need of an average standard of living is that people must be able to afford to buy a radio, TV, a newspaper,
or go to the movies. It is mostly concerned with the densest mass which is made up of average men and not the very rich or very poor.
Poor cannot do this therefore they cannot be subjected to integration propaganda because the immediate concerns of daily life absorb
all their capacities and efforts. The poor can only be subjected to agitation propaganda, excited to the point of theft and murder.
But they cannot be trained by propaganda, kept in hand, channeled, and oriented. More advanced propaganda can influence only a man
who is not completely haunted by poverty, a man who can view things from a certain distance and be reasonably unconcerned about his
daily bread, who therefore can take an interest in more general matters.
"For propaganda to be effective the propagandee must have a certain store of ideas and a number of conditioned reflexes that can
only be acquired through peace of mind springing from relative security. The establishment of a mode of common life- all this leads
to the creation of a type of normal man conveniently leads all men toward that norm via a multitude of paths. Propaganda's intent
is to integrate people into the normal pattern prevailing in society bring about conformance to way of life. To sum up: The creation
of normalcy in our society can take one of two shapes. It can be the result of scientific, psycho-sociological analysis based on
statistics- that is the American type of normalcy. It can be ideological and doctrinaire- that is the Communist type. But the results
are identical: such normalcy necessarily gives rise to propaganda that can reduce the individual to the pattern most useful to society."[16]
"Information" Is an essential element of propaganda, which must "have reference to political or economic reality" to be credible.
In fact, no propaganda can work until the moment when a set of facts has become a problem in the eyes of those who constitute public
opinion." Education permits the dissemination of propaganda in that it enables people to consume information. Information is indistinguishable
from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because for propaganda to succeed it must have reference
to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion". Where no
informed opinion with regard to political or economic affairs propaganda cannot exist making it an indispensable aspect. Propaganda
means nothing without preliminary information that provides the basis for propaganda, gives propaganda the means to operate, and
generates the problems that propaganda exploits by pretending to offer solutions. It is through information that the individual is
placed in a social context and learns to understand the reality of his own situation. Information allows us to evaluate our situation
feel our own personal problems are a general social problem thus enabling propaganda to entice us into social and political action.
Information is most effective when it is objective and broad because it creates a general picture. With information quantity is better
than quality, the more political or economic facts believed to be mastered by an individual, the more sensitive their judgment is
to propaganda. In fact, only in and through propaganda do the masses have access to political economy, politics, art, or literature.
The more stereotypes in a culture, the easier it is to form public opinion, and the more an individual participates in that culture,
the more susceptible he becomes to the manipulation of these symbols. Chapter Three: The Necessity for Propaganda
All propaganda is based on a need, a dual need, first there is the need of state to make it and second there is the need of propagandee
to receive it. These two needs compliment and correspond to each other in the development of propaganda. Propaganda is an expression
of modern society as a whole. 1.Part One: The State's Necessity
The State has the need to make propaganda to integrate citizens into its society, to disseminate information, and to increase
participation and involvement of members of society. Sometimes the people want to take part in government affairs. However, the official
leaders cannot disconnect themselves from what the people want. Being that the people in charge cant escape the people , bait must
be presented to them. This acts as a disguise that must be there to hide what is really happening behind the scenes in the government
. Citizens are aware that political decisions affect everybody and governments cannot govern without the support, presence, pressure,
or knowledge of the people. Yet the people are incapable of making long term policy so opinion must be created to follow the government
because the government cannot be led by opinion. All of this describes the "Mass-Government" relationship characterized by people
demanding what has already been decided, in order to appear as though the government is actually caring about what the people need.
The next part that the book discuss is psychological warfare. It is believed to be a peace policy that is used between nations as
a form of aggression. This type of propaganda changes the public opinion of an opposing regime so that it can be in favor of there
regime. 2. Part Two: The Individual's Necessity The individual needs propaganda to gain satisfaction as a member of society. Individuals
want to be informed and to participate in the decisions of the state. Propaganda is the outlet through which individuals obtain the
satisfaction of having contributed to the state. It is a necessary instrument of a state or institution to spread information to
members of the group or society. But for propaganda to succeed it must respond to a need on the individual's part as well. The individual
is by no means just an innocent victim of propaganda when in fact he provokes the psychological action of propaganda by not merely
lending himself to it, but also from deriving satisfaction from it. It is strictly a sociological phenomenon, in the sense that it
has its roots and reasons in the need of the group that will sustain it. The great role performed by propaganda is in its ability
to give the people the involvement they crave or the illusion of it in order for the masses to be artificially satisfied. Individuals
are faced with decisions which require a range of information that the individual does not and cannot have without propaganda. Thus,
the individual is unable to accept that he cannot form opinion on his own and is caught between his desire and his inability. People
are willing and likely to accept propaganda that allows them to artificially satisfy their desire to have an opinion by hiding their
incompetence. The individual does not mind being given preconceived positions because otherwise he would realize that he does not
understand the problems of the modern world. The individual would then realize that he "depends on situations of which he has no
control" and have to face this reality. The individual cannot live in the state of this harsh reality so he derives satisfaction
from the veil created by the ideology and the sense of values it provides. The individual need psychological and ideological reasons
why he needs to be where he is and propaganda is the mechanism that the state uses for this very purpose. Chapter Four: Psychological
Effects of Propaganda
The psychological effects of propaganda on an individual cannot be ignored. The individual undergoes profound changes while being
propagandized mainly the diminishment of personal activity. "Propaganda furnishes objectives, organizes the traits of an individual
into a system, and freezes them into a mold by standardizing current ideas, hardening the prevailing stereotypes, and furnishing
thought patterns in all areas."[17] The individual is traumatized by the overwhelming force of propaganda that intensifies the prejudices
and beliefs until eventually the individual has no control over his own impulses. It seeks to push the individual into the mass until
his will fades entirely into that of the mass. Individuality is sacrificed for the greater cause of the nation by uniting him and
blending him with others. Critical and personal judgment are subdued and replaced with ready-made attitudes and opinions. Discernment
is made nearly impossible for the individual whose ability to judge is destroyed making him dependent on propaganda's ready-made
opinions from then on. The individual can no longer exercise his own judgment and becomes honed into what propaganda tells him. He
no longer expresses himself but his group once he accepts public opinion as his own. The artificial, impersonal public opinion created
by propaganda is absorbed by the individual and he becomes filled with its conviction. When he is fully integrated in the social
group and can no longer distinguish between himself and society than he has reached total alienation. In this process, the individual's
personal inclinations lead to participation in the collective where he loses control and submits to external impulses. The individual
is suppressed psychologically so that he can continue to live under the conditions in which society places him by providing an artificial
and unreal reality that is the result of powerful propaganda. Chapter Five: The Socio-Political Effects
"In the nineteenth century, the problem of opinion formation through the expression of thought was essentially a problem of contacts
between the State and the individual, and a problem of acquisition of freedom. But today, thanks to the mass media, the individual
finds himself outside the battle that is now between the State and powerful groups. The freedom to express ideas is no longer at
stake in this debate but it has been replaced by mastery and domination by the State or some powerful groups over the formation of
opinion. The individual is not in the battle because he is the stake and the battle will determine what voice he will be permitted
to hear and which words will have the power to obsess him."[18] 1.Part One: Propaganda and Ideology
An ideology provides society certain beliefs and no social group can exist without the foundation of these beliefs. Propaganda
is the means by which an ideology can expand without force. An ideology is either fortified within a group or expanded beyond the
borders of a group through propaganda. However, propaganda is less and less concerned with spreading the ideology nowadays as it
is with becoming autonomous. The ideology is no longer the decisive factor of propaganda that must be obeyed by the propagandist.
The propagandist cannot be constrained by the ideology of his State but must operate in service of the state and be able to manipulate
the ideology as if it were an object. The ideology merely provides the content for the propagandist to build off since he is limited
to what already is present within the group, nation, or society. The fundamental ideologies are nationalism, socialism, communism,
and democracy. 2. Part Two: Effects on the Structure of Public Opinion Public opinion is an instrument of propaganda that is disseminated
through the mass media of communication to the masses. While most people view the formation of public opinion as being shaped itself
by interaction between different viewpoints on controversial questions, this is incorrect because public opinion is delineated by
propaganda as a "truth" which is either believed or not believed. Public opinion ceases to be controversial and can no longer form
itself except through channels of mass media. No opinion can be held until it is communicated to the masses through mass media. Propaganda
uses public opinion to externalize inner opinions of the organization to the masses that eventually produces conformity.[19] 3. Part
Three: Propaganda and Grouping In regards to propaganda, there are two groups: the groups that make propaganda and the groups that
are subjected to propaganda. In Ellul's view, there is a "double foray on the part of propaganda that proves the excellence of one
group and the evilness of another at the same time to create partitioning". This creates isolation between groups by promoting allegiance
to the group one is in and suppressing conversation between groups. The more they listen to their propaganda the stronger their beliefs
and the greater their justifications for their actions. Partitioning takes place on many different levels including class, religious,
political, national and blocs of nations. A superior group is able to affect the lesser groups, however, groups that have an equal
amount of influence will only separate further from one another in that a members allegiance to a group develops closed mindedness.
Well-organized propaganda is able to work with different elements that exist within a nation such as religion, political parties,
and labor groups. 4. Part Four: Propaganda and Democracy Since democracy depends on public opinion, it is clear that propaganda must
be involved. The relationship between democracy and propaganda evidently presents a conflict between the principles of democracy
and the processes of propaganda. The individual is viewed as the cornerstone of a democracy which is a form of government that is
made "for the people and by the people". However, as discussed in early chapters Ellul described the masses are incapable of making
long-term foreign policy and the government needs to make these decisions in a timely manner. This is where propaganda comes into
play and projects an artificial reality to the masses to satisfy their need to participate in government while the decisions are
really made behind the scenes. This was also describe earlier as the "mass-government" relationship. Democratic regimes develop propaganda
in line with its myths and prejudices. Propaganda stresses the superiority of a democratic society while intensifying the prejudices
between democratic and oppressive.
Major themes
Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes builds on prior notions of propaganda to demonstrate that while propaganda is psychological
in nature it is just as much sociological in nature as well. Propaganda is not just embedded into the individual's psyche but also
the cultural psyche. Propaganda works off the inner characteristics of both the individual and the society that the individual belongs.
This thorough analysis made by Ellul illustrates that to downplay the importance of the sociological influences of propaganda to
psychological ones is a dreadful error. Propaganda is more threatening when it begins to be recognized as sociological as well psychological
in nature. Below are two major themes the first stressing the psychological aims of propaganda the second the sociological aims.
"The Lonely Crowd"
The term "lonely crowd" is used by Ellul to distinguish the two inseparable elements of propaganda, the individual and the masses,
which must be addressed by the propagandist at the same time. As an isolated unit, the individual is of no interest to the propagandist
unless he is reduced to an average. It is crucial that the individual is never considered as an individual but always in terms of
what he has in common with others. The individual is included and integrated into the mass because the propagandist profits from
the process of diffusion of emotions through the mass, and at the same time, from the pressures felt by an individual when in a group.[20]
In this setting, "the individual caught up in the mass", the individual's reactions are easier to provoke and psychic defenses
are weakened. The individual must always be considered as a participant in a mass and similarly the mass must only be viewed as a
crowd composed of individuals. When propaganda is addressed to the crowd, it must touch each individual in that crowd which is in
fact nothing but assembled individuals. Conversely, the individual should not be viewed as alone as a listener, watcher, or reader
because the individual is nevertheless part of an invisible crowd though he is actually alone. The most favorable moment to influence
an individual is when he is alone in the mass, the structure of the mass is extremely profitable to the propagandist concerned with
being effective.
Fundamental currents in society
"One cannot make just any propaganda any place for anybody."[21] While propaganda is focused on reaching the individual, it cannot
only rely on building off what already exists in the individual. Propaganda must also attach itself to the pre-existing fundamental
currents of the society it seeks to influence. The propagandist must know the current tendencies and the stereotypes among the public
he is trying to reach. These are indicated by principal symbols of the culture the propagandist wishes to attack since these symbols
express the attitudes of a particular culture. Individuals are part of a culture and are therefore psychologically shaped by that
culture. The main task of propaganda is to utilize the conditioned symbols as transmitters of that culture to serve its purpose.
Propaganda must be a reflection of the fundamental structures of society to be successful and not contradictory of existing opinions.
A skillful propagandist does not try to change mass opinion or go against an accepted structure. Only a bad propagandist would make
a direct attack on an established, reasoned, durable opinion, accepted cliché, or fixed pattern. "Each individual harbors a large
number of stereotypes and established tendencies; from this arsenal the propagandist must select those easiest to mobilize, those
which will give the greatest strength to the action he wants to precipitate."[22]
While propaganda cannot create something out of nothing, it does have the ability to build on the foundation already established.
More importantly even though it does not create new material and is confined to what already exists, it is not necessarily powerless.
"It can attack from the rear, war own slowly, provide new centers of interest, which cause the neglect of previously acquired positions;
it can divert a prejudice; or it can elicit an action contrary to an opinion held by the individual without his being clearly aware
of it."[23]
Propaganda can gradually undermine prejudices and images in order to weaken them. These fundamental currents in society create
the perfect atmosphere for sociological propaganda which influences the individual through his customs and unconscious habits. Sociological
propaganda is a phenomenon where a society tries to unify its members' behavior according to a pattern. Essentially sociological
propaganda is to increase conformity with the environment that is of a collective nature by developing compliance with or defense
of the established order through long term penetration and progressive adaptation by using all social currents. The propaganda element
is the way of life with which the individual is permeated and then the individual begins to express it in film, writing, or art without
realizing it. This involuntary behavior creates an expansion of society through advertising, the movies, education, and magazines.
"The entire group, consciously or not, expresses itself in this fashion; and to indicate, secondly that its influence aims much more
at an entire style of life."[24] This type of propaganda is not deliberate but springs up spontaneously or unwittingly within a culture
or nation. This propaganda reinforces the individual's way of life and represents this way of life as best.
See also [edit] Brainwashing Conformity Ideology Indoctrination Media manipulation Mind control Propaganda Psychological manipulation
Psychological warfare Social Influence Socially constructed reality
The USA administration, and especially neocons, entrenched in State Department, organized putsch in Kiev with the help of their European
satellites. When the civil war started as the result of the putsch the USA introduced sanctions against Russia. See
"Fuck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place
Tremendous pressure exerted on Russia by the West, largely intended to show the subjects of world politics undesirability of implementing
an independent foreign policy. Washington and its satellites in Europe through sanctions are trying to demonstrate their ability to
isolate the "offending" countries from the global economy and technical progress by controlling supplies of high technology equipment.
However, analysis of the accusations against Russia suggests that both the USA Europe are dominated by neoliberals/neocons who themselves
are divorced from the realities of the current processes and looks at the world through the eyes of the early 90th then neoliberalism
enjoyed its triumphal march in Eastern Europe and xUSSR space.
After 2008 neoliberalism entered so called zombie stage. It is still very powerful and very dangerous, but ideology of neoliberalism,
like ideology of Marxism before is now looks like perishable goods with expired date of consumption. In no way it is not attractive
anymore. Events like enforcing Greece debt slavery by Germany and France only increase the reaction of rejection.
And that's despite all economic power the USA definitely possesses and success in implementing economic sanctions which drove the
Russia GDP growth into negative rages presents huge challenge for the USA. One of the best option the USA elites are pushing is the
limited war in Europe that can weaken both EU and Russia. So in a way the putsch in Kiev was anti-EU measure, as Victoria Nuland famous
quote suggests.
Sanctions, as damaging as they are, suggest that the empire lost diplomatic skills. And there is no question that economic
weapons are as close to the act of war as you can get. See Cold War II. As Patrick
Buchanan notes (ecnomicpolicyjournal.com,
April 28, 2014):
"Mr. Obama is focused on isolating President Vladimir V. Putin's Russia by cutting off its economic and political ties to the
outside world ... and effectively making it a pariah state."
So wrote Peter Baker in Sunday's New York Times. Yet if history is any guide, this "pariah policy," even if adopted, will not
long endure.
Three years after Khrushchev sent tanks into Hungary, he
was touring the USA and celebrating with Ike the new "Spirit of Camp David."
Half a year after Khrushchev moved missiles into Cuba, JFK was talking detente is his famous speech at American University.
Three weeks after Moscow incited the Arabs in the Six-Day War, Lyndon Johnson was meeting with Premier Alexei Kosygin in New Jersey,
where the "Spirit of Glassboro," was born.
So it went through the Cold War. Post-crises, U.S. presidents reached out to Soviet leaders. For they saw Russia as too large
and too powerful to be isolated and ostracized like North Korea.
The sustained expansion of economic sanctions, especially against the oil and gas sector and specific companies as well as
limited access to credit resources indicate the seriousness of the Western establishment to deprive Russia of the economic growth and
the ability to protect its own economic interests.
A pipe bearing the Nord Stream 2 logo at a plant in Chelyabinsk, Russia, Feb. 26, 2020. PHOTO: MAXIM SHEMETOV/REUTERS Listen to this article 5 minutes 00:00 / 05:07 1x Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma found himself in the company of a political titan, France's President François Mitterrand, on a gloomy day in December 1994. "Young man, you will be tricked, one way or another," Mitterrand told Mr. Kuchma, who was then the leader of a newly independent nation. Unsettled as he felt, Mr. Kuchma accepted the security assurances of the U.S., U.K. and Russia and signed the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world. Little did we know that two decades later one of the signatories -- Russia -- would attack Ukraine and occupy its sovereign territory. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma found himself in the company of a political titan, France's President François Mitterrand, on a gloomy day in December 1994. "Young man, you will be tricked, one way or another," Mitterrand told Mr. Kuchma, who was then the leader of a newly independent nation. Unsettled as he felt, Mr. Kuchma accepted the security assurances of the U.S., U.K. and Russia and signed the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, then the third-largest in the world. Little did we know that two decades later one of the signatories -- Russia -- would attack Ukraine and occupy its sovereign territory. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Now, after many years of wooing and cajoling, Russia's attitude toward Ukraine is again growing belligerent. The Minsk process to resolve the conflict is stalled, and foreign troops have yet to leave the Donbas, the Ukrainian region where fighting rages on. Despite the supposed cessation of hostilities agreed to in September 2014, when the Minsk protocol was signed, little progress has been made. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. Ukrainians therefore are bewildered by the continuing construction of the Baltic Sea pipeline, known as Nord Stream 2. Unlike the attack on Crimea, which came as a surprise, the pipeline's completion will have entirely predictable consequences for our national security. Ukraine will be irreparably weakened as soon as Russia has a new direct gas link to Germany. With the Nord Stream 1 and Turk Stream pipelines already operational, Nord Stream 2 will complete the encirclement of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, decoupling our energy security from Western Europe. Russia has tried to bully Ukraine by threatening gas cutoffs, most recently in June 2014. But Moscow has always had to be careful -- a large percentage of Russia's gas reaches Europe through Ukraine. If Nord Stream 2 is built, this consideration will be null and void. With the Nord Stream 1 and Turk Stream pipelines already operational, Nord Stream 2 will complete the encirclement of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, decoupling our energy security from Western Europe. Russia has tried to bully Ukraine by threatening gas cutoffs, most recently in June 2014. But Moscow has always had to be careful -- a large percentage of Russia's gas reaches Europe through Ukraine. If Nord Stream 2 is built, this consideration will be null and void. me title= NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP ( Apr 11, 2021 , www.wsj.com )
Five years ago, it seemed to many observers that something called "nationalism" had returned to U.S. politics and culture. After a
period stretching from the end of the Cold War to the election of
Donald
Trump
when Americans, or at least the elite, had been confident about economic globalization, internationalist foreign policy,
and mass immigration, it appeared that much of the Right was now rejecting that consensus. Crucial to this perceived shift was the
revival of the idea of America as a "nation," a specific place and distinct people whose values and political projects are not
necessarily addressed to the rights and needs of humanity as a whole.
After
Nationalism: Being American in an Age of Division
, by Samuel Goldman. University of Pennsylvania Press, 208 pp., $24.95.
Half a decade later, it is much harder to believe that nationalism is, or ever was, resurgent, or that it offers a way forward for
conservatives. Many Republican voters and politicians continue to support Trump, who has largely taken leave of his earlier
nationalist orientation in favor of railing against the 2020 election. A handful of think tanks and small magazines, such as
American
Affairs
, have separated themselves from the former president while persisting in efforts to sketch the possibilities for a
conservative nationalism after Trump. Other intellectuals on the Right are trying to imagine what comes, as political theorist
Samuel Goldman puts it, "after nationalism."
In his short new book,
After Nationalism
:
Being American in
an Age of Division
, Goldman argues that a renewal of nationalism is neither possible nor desirable. He supports this argument
with a historical account that distinguishes among three different understandings of "nation" that have shaped politics over the
past four centuries. The one closest in time to us -- and closest to the values of the centrist, anti-Trump conservative intellectual
class -- is "creedal nationalism," in which American identity is based on agreement with a "creed," a set of values derived from
founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
Creedal nationalism, which flourished in the mid-20th century, emphasized legal equality and some degree of economic equality. Its
adherents connected this egalitarianism to an interpretation of American history according to which our founding values, at first
applied only partially or even hypocritically, were over the course of many political struggles wrested from the control of white
land-owning elites and extended to all. As Goldman observes, that creedal account of identity as both a philosophical commitment to
certain ideas and the historical process of their realization was a powerful force for collective action. It told people that who
they were depended on what they believed and assured them that their beliefs had been, and therefore could continue to be, not
merely an abstract ideal or a vision of the past but a program for political change. They had an identity, an ideology, a history,
and a program for the future.
Goldman claims that the creedal form of nationalism was a "failure" and disappeared during the crisis of the 1960s and 1970s.
According to him, activists from racial, sexual, and other minorities contested its interpretation of American history, which they
came to see not as the gradual expansion of the democratic promise of our founding but as a series of conflicts between oppressors
and oppressed. Undermining faith in America's basic goodness, understood as its capacity to integrate an ever-widening circle of
people into an ever-expanding notion of freedom and equality, these activists also overloaded narratives of national history with
demands for inclusion of "their" perspectives. Histories written in the aftermath of this cultural revolution tended to be either
polemically "anti-American," a confusing muddle of multicultural perspectives, or both. But conservatives and old-fashioned liberals
have failed to produce a cohesive new narrative, resorting instead to unconvincing arguments about the need for politically useful,
if historically false, national myths that can generate consensus.
Creedal nationalism, however, may neither be as obsolete nor as opposed to multiculturalism and activist politics as Goldman
suggests. We seem, in fact, to be witnessing the emergence of a new form of woke creedalism: a historical account of American
identity organized around the efforts of minorities to overcome white supremacy, patriarchy, and other evils. Unlike the earlier
form of creedalism, this new iteration does not present America's founding ideals as essentially good -- it is more likely to see
them as irredeemably tainted by the original sins of slavery and colonialism. It does, however, have the same structure and purpose
as the earlier creedalism. It offers adherents a sense of who they are (victims of America), what they believe (a particularly
strident sort of American egalitarianism), where they have been (oppression), and what they must do (defeat, rule over, and
eventually assimilate or annihilate their oppressors). The identitarian Left does not operate in an era "after nationalism." Rather,
it promotes a form of creedal nationalism that defines itself against a certain understanding of America.
If the Left has not moved beyond nationalism, one may doubt that the Right will. Goldman calls on readers to imagine a new kind of
American identity divorced from any "coherent and enduring sense of shared identity and purpose." Such commitments, he insists, can
only fuel the culture wars by stoking debates about who Americans are and what they value. He urges us instead to move toward a
minimal loyalty to the liberal democratic process, which we should appreciate as a means of diffusing our political, cultural, and
ethical divisions and allowing us to live decently together.
This proposal, which amounts to an appeal to fellow conservative intellectuals to distance themselves further from nationalism, has
at least two problems. First, Goldman hopes people will stop looking to politics to express their cultural identities and turn
instead toward "associational" life: unions, churches, etc. But the associational life of much of working- and middle-class America
has been hollowed out in the last two generations, largely because of economic policies that have left average people facing lives
that are ever more isolated, precarious, and brief. Second, although he briefly acknowledges in his introduction the "impulses" and
"grievances" that lead the Republican Party to shift away from "globalism," Goldman seems by his conclusion to have forgotten that
Americans face serious material problems that cannot be solved without collective action through the state. Pursuing this collective
action will require a long and intense process of political mobilization that seems implausible if people are not united by a shared
belief similar in intensity to the creedal nationalism of the past -- and counter to the creedal nationalism of the contemporary
Left.
Blake Smith is a historian of modern France and a literary translator.
From Peter the Great to Catherine the Great to Alexander I, Nicholas I, Alexander II,
Alexander III and Nicholas II in 1917, Romanov czars ruled Russia. After 1917 came Vladimir
Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin
and Vladimir Putin.
Pat was doing so well up until this set of sentences... when Pat Buchanan horribly erred
in including the shifty and ne'er-do-well Boris Yeltsin as such person was an idiot & a
crook so much more so than an autocrat... He was too dumb, crooked, naive, drunken, and out
of touch with reality to be an autocrat... Yeltsin was just a fool, a lost fool, a forlorn
fool, and a weakling... Much like the Czar that came under the spell of Rasputin... Yeltsin
bought into all the Western Elites malarkey and foolishness about economic reforms that came
close to ruining Russian civilization and destroying Russia as a society and a nation...
Thereafter God upon feeling guilty for having allowed the worthless Yeltsin onto power...
then God sent the Angel St. Vladimir to save Russian civilization from destruction and to
save the Russian people... and the Holy Putin worked his magic and Russia was not destroyed,
the Russians were saved, and Russian civilization preserved for the future and spared its
demise...
CovidBannedTard 12 hours ago (Edited) remove link
The CCP loving corporate western bankers who sold American manufacturing to the CCP almost
had Russia on its knees with Yeltsin.They were asset stripping it.
Then Putin slammed their tally whackers in a door.
And booted them out.
The same CCP loving corporate bankers are still asset stripping America 21 years and
counting since Putin kicked them out.
Don't worry, US gov't...you can always sell your LNG to Poland...hahahah!
LA_Goldbug 11 hours ago
I wonder what the price is for this LNG from all the way across the Atlantic.
rosalinda 10 hours ago
I read it is triple the price of the Russian gas. The Russians have all the advantages
here. Putin probably would not weaponize the gas, but who is to say some Russian leader in
the future might not take the opportunity? Europe is more dependant on Russian gas then
Russia is dependant on European money
XJ033858JH 10 hours ago
It's more like 3.3 times...10% for the big guy
BannedCamp 8 hours ago
Likewise, Russia could nuke the whole world, but they never used a nuke on any country
before, but the US has. Saying that Russia might do something that the accusing party (The
U.S) is actually doing right now (to Germany) is blatant hypocrisy.
After much arm-twisting, bullying and foghorn diplomacy towards its European allies, the
United States appears to have finally given up on trying to block the giant Nord Stream 2
project with Russia. What an epic saga it has been, revealing much about American relations
with Europe and Washington's geopolitical objectives, as well as, ultimately, the historic
decline in U.S. global power.
In the end, sanity and natural justice seem to have prevailed. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline
under the Baltic Sea will double the existing flow of Russia's prodigious natural gas to
Germany and the rest of Europe. The fuel is economical and environmentally clean compared with
coal, oil and the shale gas that the Americans were vying with Russia to export.
Russia's vast energy resources will ensure Europe's economies and households are reliably
and efficiently fueled for the future. Germany, the economic engine of the European Union, has
a particular vital interest in securing the Nord Stream 2 project which augments an existing
Nord Stream 1 pipeline. Both follow the same Baltic Sea route of approximately 1,222 kilometers
– the longest pipeline in the world – taking Russian natural gas from its arctic
region to the northern shores of Germany. For Germany's export-led economy, Russian fuel is
essential for future growth, and hence benefiting the rest of Europe.
It was always a natural fit between Russia and the European Union. Geographically and
economically, the two parties are compatible traders and Nord Stream 2 is merely the
culmination of decades of efficient energy relations.
Enter the Americans. Washington has been seething over the strategic energy trade between
Russia and Europe. The opposition escalated under the Trump administration (so much for Trump
being an alleged Russian stooge!) when his ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, fired off
threatening letters to German and other European companies arrogantly warning that they would
be hit with sanctions if they dared proceed with Nord Stream 2. Pipe-laying work was indeed
interrupted last year by U.S. sanctions. (So much for European sovereignty and alleged meddling
in internal affairs by Russia!)
The ostensible American rationale was always absurd. Washington claimed that Russia would
exploit its strategic role as gas supplier by extracting malicious concessions from Europe. It
was also claimed that Russia would "weaponize" energy trade to enable alleged aggression
towards Ukraine and other Eastern European states. The rationale reflects the twisted
Machiavellian mentality of the Americans and their supporters in Europe – Poland and the
Baltic states, as well as the Kiev regime in Ukraine. Such mentality is shot-through with
irrational Russophobia.
The ridiculous paranoid claims against Russia are of course an inversion of reality. It is
the Americans and their European surrogates who are weaponizing a mundane matter of commercial
trade that in reality offers a win-win relationship. Part of the real objective is to distort
market economics by demonizing Russia in order for the United States to export their own vastly
more expensive and environmentally dirty liquefied natural gas to Europe. (So much for American
free-market capitalism!)
Another vital objective for Washington is to thwart any normal relations developing between
Russia and the rest of Europe. American hegemony and its hyper-militaristic economy depend on
dividing and ruling other nations as so-called "allies" and "adversaries". This has been a
long-time necessity ever since the Second World War and during the subsequent Cold War decades,
the latter constantly revived by Washington against Russia. (So much for American claims that
Russia is a "revisionist power"!)
However, there is a fundamental objective problem for the Americans. The empirical decline
of U.S. global power means that Washington can no longer bully other nations in the way it has
been accustomed to doing for decades. The old Cold War caricatures of demonizing others have
lost their allure and potency because the objective world we live in today simply does not make
them plausible or credible. The Russian gas trade with the European Union is a consummate case
in point. In short, Germany and the EU are not going to shoot themselves in the foot,
economically speaking, simply on the orders of Uncle Sam.
President Joe Biden had enough common sense – unlike the egotistical Trump – to
realize that American opposition to Nord Stream 2 was futile. Biden is more in tune with the
Washington establishment than his maverick predecessor. Hence Biden began waiving sanctions
imposed under Trump. Finally this week, the White House announced that it had come to an
agreement with Germany to permit Nord Stream 2 to go ahead. The Financial Times called it a
"truce" while the Wall Street Journal referred to a "deal" between Washington and Berlin.
(Ironically, American non-interference is presented as a "deal"!)
The implication is that the United States was magnanimously giving a "concession" to Europe.
The reality is the Americans were tacitly admitting they can't stop the strategic convergence
between Russia and the rest of Europe on a vital matter of energy supply.
In spinning the eventuality, Washington has continued to accuse Russia of "weaponizing"
trade. It warns that if Russia is perceived to be abusing relations with Ukraine and Europe
then the United States will slap more sanctions on Moscow. This amounts to the defeated bully
hyperventilating.
Another geopolitical factor is China. The Biden administration has prioritized confrontation
with China as the main long-term concern for repairing U.S. decline. Again, Biden is more in
tune with the imperial planners in Washington than Trump was. They know that in order for the
United States to have a chance of undermining China as a geopolitical rival the Europeans must
be aligned with U.S. policy. Trump's boorish browbeating of Europeans and Germany in particular
over NATO budgets and other petty issues resulted in an unprecedented rift in the
"transatlantic alliance" – the euphemism for American dominance over Europe. By appearing
to concede to Germany over Nord Stream 2, Washington is really aiming to shore up its
anti-China policy. This too is an admission of defeat whereby American power is unable to
confront China alone. The bully needs European lackeys to align, and so is obliged to offer a
"deal" over Russia's energy trade.
All in all, Washington's virtue-signaling is one helluva gas!
21 play_arrow 2
Peter Pan 12 hours ago
What the USA accuses Russia of planning to do down the track is actually what the USA is
doing now. In other words it is the USA that is weaponusing the gas issue with threats and
sanctions.
_ConanTheLibertarian_ 12 hours ago remove link
The US had no business interfering. Bye.
buzzsaw99 12 hours ago
the usa should ask russia to teach them how to keep natural gas flowing when it gets
cold outside. lol
RedSeaPedestrian 11 hours ago
How to keep a windmill spinning comes first.
two hoots 11 hours ago
Well we did interfere and the results exposed our decline in multifarious ways, mainly
power in all things that matter in the international arena: diplomacy, defense, economic,
trust. We yet have great influence with our scientific and industrial capabilities but even
there others are reaching parity. Internally our unsupportable debt will hinder even that.
Basically it is the US Government (domestic/foreign affairs) that has led the charge of our
decline. "Government is dead" .... (we need a new and improved one to worship)
Max21c 11 hours ago
The Washingtonians & Londoners are just upset because now their buddies and puppets
in the Ukraine aren't going to be able to use control over the transit of Russian gas
through the Ukraine to hold Europe hostage and get their way. So everything that they're
accusing the Russians of doing in the future is what Washingtonians, Londoners, and the
Ukraine were doing in the past. They're just upset since their Ukrainian vassals can no
longer do their bidding's against Moscow and Eastern Europe.
MR166 9 hours ago
I am a USA loving conservative but I really never understood the objections to the
pipeline. Since energy = standard of living the pipeline does nothing but help mankind. The
US has no problem becoming totally dependent on China for drugs, medical supplies, chips
and manufacturing but is afraid of Russia shipping gas to Europe. How does that make any
sense at all???!!!
ar8 9 hours ago (Edited) remove link
I will explain it for you:
US companies wanted to sell their gas to Europe.
The US companies attempted to use the US to bully European countries, companies,
projects and people through sanctions and threatening fines.
It worked, a bit: numerous companies ceased working on it.
But the US, as usual, with its bullyboy tactics had been less effective and created more
self-damage than it expected. It has created many enemies as a result, which will hasten
the demise of the US government.
Despite its age, the following is still relevant to Nord Stream II: "War Is a Racket" is
a speech and a 1935 short book, by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps
Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient.
Rudolph 2 hours ago
One more reason. We control Ukraine, Ukraine control gas to Germany. = We control
Germany.
Vivekwhu 9 hours ago
What is the point of having a financial/military/market empire if you don't have a
finger in every pie enriching your elite?
Chief Joesph 11 hours ago
It was simply a war of hate about anything Russian. The U.S. really had nothing to offer
Germany anyway. From the German perspective, they had to protect their own interests, and
since Russia was offering to sell them natural gas and the U.S. wasn't, the choice was
rather simple. Perhaps it might make better relationships between eastern block countries
and the west too.
The U.S. spends a great amount of time and resources "hating" other countries for no
reason at all. It's bigotry by any other definition. The U.S. practices a systematic and
especially politically exploited expression of hatred and hostilities. Not only do they
practice this against other countries, but among their own kind too. The U.S. ranks as one
of the more hateful countries in the world, only surpassed by the Middle East. Add that to
the reasons why Germany doesn't want to go along with U.S. temper tantrums.
LA_Goldbug 10 hours ago
Not "hating" but "bombing" is the right description of the US foreign policy
practice.
porco rosso 11 hours ago
Mr Putin is way too clever for these yankster clowns and makes them look like the fools
they are time and time again. That is why they hate him so much.
Max21c 11 hours ago remove link
Putin didn't have to outsmart them. The Europeans need the gas. Water does not usually
flow uphill.
porco rosso 11 hours ago
True. But in Germany there are a lot of treacherous transatlantic elements that wanted
to sabotage the pipeline at any cost.
These elements are Germans but they dont give a **** about Germany. Treacherous
scumbags.
wootendw PREMIUM 11 hours ago (Edited)
" The ostensible American rationale was always absurd. Washington claimed that Russia
would exploit its strategic role as gas supplier by extracting malicious concessions from
Europe. It was also claimed that Russia would "weaponize" energy trade to enable alleged
aggression towards Ukraine and other Eastern European states. "
The absurdity lies with the existence of NATO or the US being in NATO. It no more makes
sense for US to commit ourselves to Europe's defense against Russia than it does for Europe
to buy American NG for three times the price it can get Russia's for.
williambanzai7 PREMIUM 10 hours ago (Edited)
Well apparently some tard thinks it makes perfect sense for other readily imagined
strategic reasons none of which have anything to do with accountable governance.
Someone thinks NATO is a dog leash. An expensive dog leash.
yerfej 11 hours ago
The washington idiot cabal needs something to focus on to justify their existence so
they wander the globe telling everyone how to live and who they can trade with when they're
not busy starting or expanding wars. The reality is the US federal government is a
completely useless parasite who's ONLY function is to domestically terrorize its own
citizens and the other nations of the world.
known unknown 10 hours ago remove link
Nordstream II was built to a stop Ukraine from blocking gas to Europe which they already
did once, stealing gas which they have always done. Germany asked Russia to build it. The
dummy Bulgarians stopped a similar pipeline yielding to the US. Then they cried about it
when they realized they lost billions. No matter what's promised Ukraine will be cut out in
5 years if they continue hostilities towards Russians.
LA_Goldbug 10 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Most people conveniently forget or don't know about Ukraine's siphoning of the gas while
in transit to European countries.
Germany is as bad as the US. Thanks to Germany Yugoslavia was decapitated with help from
US and UK.
Greed is King 11 hours ago
Nordstream 2 is a trade deal between the EU (primarily Germany) and Russia.
Russia sells gas to the EU; and the EU buys gas from Russia.
2. Who the feck does America think it is that it thinks it can interfere with and make
demands of free and sovereign nations ?.
When the bully is beaten, nobody ever feels sympathy for him; America would do well to
think about that.
Samual Vimes 11 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Surroguts /proxies, what ever.
Unelected policy makers in all their purple clad glory.
Max21c 12 hours ago (Edited)
After much arm-twisting, bullying and foghorn diplomacy towards its European allies,
the United States appears to have finally given up on trying to block the giant Nord
Stream 2 project with Russia. What an epic saga it has been, revealing much about
American relations with Europe and Washington's geopolitical objectives, as well as,
ultimately, the historic decline in U.S. global power.
It may show a decline in US global power or it may just show a rise in Washingtonian
amateurishness, arrogance, obnoxiousness, naivete and stupidity...
all it does is show out in the open that certain people are quacks, flakes, and
screwballs. Why would anyone in their right mind waste time & efforts or political
capital or diplomatic capital/bonnafides on trying to do something so silly as block Nord
Stream 2... It just makes Washingtonians look ridiculous, silly, and absurd...
It's almost as crazy as making a horse into a Roman Senator or declaring a war on the
Neptune or attacking the sea... It appears as if right after the Berlin Wall came down
American elites and Washingtonians all joined the Mad King Ludwig cult and became
worshipers of everything crazy...
RedSeaPedestrian 11 hours ago remove link
Or even as crazy as making a Dementia patient a Roman Emperor. (Or is that a United
States President? I forget sometimes.)
hugin-o-munin 12 hours ago remove link
Whatever political games are being played there is no getting around the fact that
Europe and Russia will eventually start to get along and expand trade and industrial
cooperation. Most people know that both the US and UK want to prevent this because it will
diminish their current top dog positions wrt global trade and financial control. Few things
compare to trade and mutual beneficial cooperation when it comes to lowering the risk for
conflict.
Just like Europe should promote development and trade with northern Africa so should the
US with central and southern America. This would also put an end to the endless migrant
caravans that are putting a huge strain on both the EU and US today. It's actually a non
brainer and says more about these satanic globalists' true motive than anything else.
ReichstagFireDept. 9 hours ago remove link
Nord Stream 2 is your best indicator that Governments are realizing that Renewable
Energy is NOT the replacement for Conventional Energy.
Nat. Gas IS the clean Energy source that everyone was screaming for...now it's finally
worldwide and they don't want it?!
Sorry, your Green Marxist dream is ending.
geno-econ 9 hours ago remove link
U.S. should be grateful Russia is sharing its natural resources with West rather than
aligning with China. There is much more than natural gas---ferro manganese, ferro chrome,
uranium, enrichment, titanium, aluminum, fertilizer, wheat, timber products, etc. U.S.
trade with China essentially imports only two major resources---cheap labor and synthetic
opioids !
williambanzai7 PREMIUM 9 hours ago
Well, there's some plastic junk and red refugees in there as well.
geno-econ 9 hours ago
only wealthy red capitalists disguised as refugees from China
ar8 9 hours ago
You are assuming the US government thinks rationally.
The Kremlin said on Thursday it disagreed with some statements in an agreement between the
United States and Germany on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, insisting that Russia had never
used energy as a tool of political pressure.
The pact aims to mitigate what critics see as the strategic dangers of the $11 billion Nord
Stream 2 pipeline, now 98% complete, being built under the Baltic Sea to carry gas from
Russia's Arctic region to Germany.
"Russia has always been and remains a responsible guarantor of energy security on the
European continent, or I would even say on a wider, global scale," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Peskov told reporters.
Arby's Just Quietly Discontinued These 6 Menu Items See Dolly Parton Recreate Her Iconic
"Playboy" Cover 43 Years Later
WASHINGTON, July 21 (Reuters) - Germany has committed to take action on its own and back
action at the European Union level should Russia seek to use energy as a weapon or take
aggressive action against Ukraine, U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland said on
Wednesday.
"Should Russia attempt to use energy as a weapon or commit further aggressive actions
against Ukraine, Germany will take actions at the national level and press for effective
measures at the European level, including sanctions, to limit Russian export capabilities in
the energy sector," Nuland told lawmakers, adding that Germany would support an extension of
the Russia-Ukraine transit agreement that expires in 2024. (Reporting By Arshad Mohammed and
Jonathan Landay)
"... Two world wars were fought to keep Germany down. The stated purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. ..."
"... IMO US didn't cause NS2 friction because it thinks it benefits Russia, but exactly because it benefits Germany too much. ..."
"... You know, NATO, "Keep the Germans down..." and all that. US must not permit it's vassals to become too economically stronger than their master. They want to drag everyone they can down with them (and in shitter US goes) so they can still be king of the hill (or ad least shitter bottom). ..."
"... The most important point to know is that US hegemony in Europe is predicated on fear and hostility between Germany and Russia. ..."
"... There are many limitations to European strategic autonomy -- and the EU embodies those limits in many ways -- but the case of NS2 demonstrates an independent streak in German strategy. It amounts to a zero sum loss for Washington. ..."
"... Lebanon does illustrate the incredible reach of the Empire. A leverage so long that every door leads to self immolation. Your mention of the current spyware scandal is right on point. These are instruments of absolute power. ..."
"... While Trump is certainly no representative of humanity, it just as certainly doesn't look like his rise was in the playbook of the dominant faction of the oligarchy. Trump really seems to fit the mould of a Bonapartist, though recast in the context of contemporary America. This would indicate that the imperial oligarchy is in crisis, which itself could lead to fractures in the empire, and among the empire's vassals in particular. ..."
The sanctions war the U.S. waged against Germany and Russia over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
has ended with a total U.S. defeat.
The U.S. attempts to block the pipeline were part of the massive anti-Russia campaign waged
over the last five years. But it was always based on a misunderstanding. The pipeline is not to
Russia's advantage but important for Germany. As I described Nord Stream 2 in a
previous piece :
It is not Russia which needs the pipeline. It can
sell its gas to China for just as much as it makes by selling gas to Europe.
...
It is Germany, the EU's economic powerhouse, that needs the pipeline and the gas flowing
through it. Thanks to Chancellor Merkel's misguided energy policy - she put an end to nuclear
power in German after a tsunami in Japan destroyed three badly placed reactors - Germany
urgently needs the gas to keep its already high electricity prices from rising further.
That the new pipeline will bypass old ones which run through the Ukraine is likewise to
the benefit of Germany, not Russia. The pipeline infrastructure in the Ukraine is old and
near to disrepair. The Ukraine has no money to renew it. Politically it is under U.S.
influence. It could use its control over the energy flow to the EU for blackmail. (It already
tried
once.) The new pipeline, laid at the bottom of the Baltic sea, requires no payment for
crossing Ukrainian land and is safe from potential malign influence.
Maybe Chancellor Merkel on her recent visit to Washington DC finally managed to explain that
to the Biden administration. More likely though she simply told the U.S. to f*** off. Whatever
- the result is in. As the Wall Street Journal
reports today:
The U.S. and Germany have reached an agreement allowing completion of the Nord Stream 2
natural gas pipeline, officials from both countries say.
Under the four-point agreement, Germany and the U.S. would invest $50 million in Ukrainian
green-tech infrastructure, encompassing renewable energy and related industries. Germany also
would support energy talks in the Three Seas Initiative, a Central European diplomatic
forum.
Berlin and Washington as well would try to ensure that Ukraine continues to receive
roughly $3 billion in annual transit fees that Russia pays under its current agreement with
Kyiv, which runs through 2024. Officials didn't explain how to ensure that Russia continues
to make the payments.
The U.S. also would retain the prerogative of levying future pipeline sanctions in the
case of actions deemed to represent Russian energy coercion, officials in Washington
said.
So Germany will spend some chump change to buy up, together with the U.S, a few Ukrainian
companies that are involved in solar or wind mill stuff. It will 'support' some irrelevant
talks by maybe paying for the coffee. It also promises to try something that it has no way to
succeed in.
That's all just a fig leave. The U.S. really gave up without receiving anything for itself
or for its client regime in the Ukraine.
The Ukraine lobby in Congress will be very unhappy with that deal. The Biden administration
hopes to avoid an uproar over it. Yesterday Politico reported that the Biden
administration preemptively had told the Ukraine
to stop talking about the issue :
In the midst of tense negotiations with Berlin over a controversial Russia-to-Germany
pipeline, the Biden administration is asking a friendly country to stay quiet about its
vociferous opposition. And Ukraine is not happy.
U.S. officials have signaled that they've given up on stopping the project, known as the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and are now scrambling to contain the damage by striking a grand
bargain with Germany.
At the same time, administration officials have quietly urged their Ukrainian counterparts
to withhold criticism of a forthcoming agreement with Germany involving the pipeline,
according to four people with knowledge of the conversations.
The U.S. officials have indicated that going public with opposition to the forthcoming
agreement could damage the Washington-Kyiv bilateral relationship , those sources said. The
officials have also urged the Ukrainians not to discuss the U.S. and Germany's potential
plans with Congress.
If Trump had done the above Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would have called for another
impeachment.
The Ukrainian President Zelensky is furious over the deal and about being told to shut up.
But there is little he can do but to accept the booby price the Biden administration offered
him:
U.S. officials' pressure on Ukrainian officials to withhold criticism of whatever final deal
the Americans and the Germans reach will face significant resistance.
A source close to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Kyiv's position is that
U.S. sanctions could still stop completion of the project, if only the Biden administration
had the will to use them at the construction and certification stages. That person said Kyiv
remains staunchly opposed to the project.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration gave Zelensky a date for a meeting at the White House
with the president later this summer , according to a senior administration official.
Nord Stream 2 is to 96% ready. Its testing will start in August or September and by the
years end it will hopefully deliver gas to western Europe.
Talks about building Nord Stream 3 are likely to start soon.
Posted by b on July 21, 2021 at 17:13 UTC | Permalink
Did Merkel also get Biden to promise that neither he nor any of his clients (AQ, ISIS, etc.
etc. etc.) would perpetrate any "unfortunate incidents" or "disruptions" on NS 2?
And would any such promises be worth the breath that uttered them?
But it was always based on a misunderstanding. The pipeline is not to Russia's advantage
but important for Germany
I'm afraid it is you who doesn't understand. Two world wars were fought to keep Germany down. The stated purpose of NATO is to keep the
Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.
They weren't trying to block NS2 to keep Russia out but to keep Germany down,
I beg to differ. IMO US didn't cause NS2 friction because it thinks it benefits Russia, but
exactly because it benefits Germany too much.
You know, NATO, "Keep the Germans down..." and all that. US must not permit it's vassals
to become too economically stronger than their master. They want to drag everyone they can
down with them (and in shitter US goes) so they can still be king of the hill (or ad least
shitter bottom).
That is why there is also pressure for all western countries to adopt insane immigration,
LGBT, austerity policies and what not. What a better way to destroy all these countries, both
economically and culturally, or adleast make them far more worse than US, it is only way US
can again become "powerhouse", like after WW2.
Does this represent a fracturing of the EU? or maybe a change in direction?
What b is pointing out about how if it were Trump....only means that the bullying approach
by empire didn't work and now we are seeing face saving bullying and backpedaling like crazy
in some areas.
I roll my eyes at this ongoing belief that Trump represented humanity instead of all or
some faction of the elite....as a demigod it seems.
the "facts" as you state them are not quite right.
1. China is ruthless. They waited until the last possible second to sign a deal with Iran,
thus ensuring they are getting the best possible price for Iran's oil, basically robbing Iran
blind. The poor Iran didn't have a choice but to agree. Even today, Putin will NOT say how
much China is paying for gas on Siberia pipeline and a lot of people think China is robbing
Russia blind on the deal. A second Siberia line without a NS2 will put Russia is very bad
negotiation position and China in very good one, giving them the advantage to ask for any
price of Russia and get it.
2. Merkel is leaving anyway in September and thw Green party that will be taking over HATES
RUssia with passion. The NS2 is far from done deal, it needs to be insured. Plus it will fall
under the EU 3rd energy package making sure Germany doesn't use it 100% . The NS2 will never
be 100 usable, the Green party will see to that. AT best it will be only 50% usage.
And so on and so on.
Funny how in today's world, we all have different facts. My facts are different than YOUR
facts. My facts are just as relevant as your facts.
What is more, the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United
States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an
alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.
The article explains a lot, more than just Germany or Russia.
They weren't trying to block NS2 to keep Russia out but to keep Germany down...
Germany would be 'down' no matter how much financial power it accumulates - i.e regardless
of NS2. The imperial garrison at Rammstein AFB will make sure of that. What the Americans fear is the symbolic meaning of NS2 in terms of geopolitical influence
for Russia. The loss of maneuverability against Russia that results from a key vassal not
being able to move in complete obedience to Uncle Sam's wishes.
The pipeline construction battle has been won, not the energy flow war.
The Financial Empire is most likely resorting to some CHARADE to find an excuse to later
stop the gas flow through Nord Stream 2. Empire's bullying was clearly exposed through
sanctions and it LOST the battle of stopping the pipeline construction. So it moves to the
next battle to find an excuse to stop the gas flow. Empire's evil intent is visible in these
words, "the U.S. also would retain the prerogative of levying future pipeline sanctions in
the case of actions deemed to represent Russian energy coercion, officials in Washington
said."
The Financial Empire has worked hard over the last century to prevent Germany from allying
herself with Russia. It wants to control energy flowing in Eurasia and its pricing. The war
will be only won when the Financial Empire is defeated and its global pillars of power
DISMANTLED.
"The 'heartland' was an area centered in Eurasia, which would be so situated and catered
to by resources and manpower as to render it an unconquerable fortress and a fearsome power;
and the 'crescent' was a virtual semi-arc encompassing an array of islands – America,
Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Japan – which, as 'Sea Powers,' watched over the
Eurasian landmass to detect and eventually thwart any tendency towards a consolidation of
power on the heartland."
Has the Financial Empire stopped interfering in other regions?
"US, Germany Threaten Retaliatory Action Against Russia in Draft Nord Stream 2 Accord -
Report...."
"As the US and Germany have reportedly reached a deal on the Nord Stream 2 project,
Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing the obtained draft text of the agreement, that it
would threaten sanctions and other measures if Russia tried to use energy as a 'weapon'
against Ukraine , though it did not specify what actions could provoke the
countermeasures.
"According to the report, in such a case, Germany will take unspecified national
action , a decision that may represent a concession from Chancellor Angela Merkel, who
had previously refused to take independent action against Moscow over the gas pipeline that
will run from Russia to Germany." [My Emphasis]
The article continues:
"On Tuesday, Ned Price, a spokesman for the US State Department, told reporters that he
did not have final details of an agreement to announce, but that 'the Germans have put
forward useful proposals, and we have been able to make progress on steps to achieve that
shared goal, that shared goal being to ensure that Russia cannot weaponize energy
."
" The US was hoping for explicit language that would commit Germany to shut down gas
delivery through Nord Stream 2 if Russia attempted to exert undue influence on Ukraine .
Germany, on the other hand, has long rejected such a move, stating that such a threat would
only serve to politicize a project that Merkel stresses is solely commercial in nature." [My
Emphasis]
The overall motive appears to be this:
"The accord would also commit Germany to use its influence to prolong Ukraine's gas
transit arrangement with Russia beyond 2024, possibly for up to ten years . Those talks
would begin no later than September 1, according to the news outlet." [My Emphasis]
So, here we have the Outlaw US Empire meddling in the internal affairs of three
nations--Germany, Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine cannot afford Russian gas as it has no rubles
to pay for it. Thus if Ukraine has no money to buy, then why should Gazprom be obliged to
give it away freely? What about other European customers who rely on gas piped through
Ukraine; are they going to see what they pay for get stolen by Ukraine? And what happens when
the pipelines breakdown from lack of maintenance since Ukraine's broke thanks to the Outlaw
Us Empire's coup that razed its economy? Shouldn't the Empire and its NATO vassals who
invaded Ukraine via their coup be forced to pay for such maintenance? And just who
"weaponized" this entire situation in the first place?
From my understanding, NS 2 was mutually beneficial for Germany and Russia.
As noted, Germany desperately needs energy and relying on the outrageously priced and
unreliable US LNG was not a viable option.
Russia benefits also.
1.No more high transit fees Russia pays Ukraine. I imagine some of that was finding its way
into US pockets after 2014.
2.Ukraine supposedly helped itself to plenty of stolen gas from the pipeline. That will
stop.
3.Ukraine was occasionally shutting down the pipeline for political reasons until Russia paid
the ransom. Not anymore.
So, Russia and Germany were both highly motivated to finish the pipeline ASAP.
Germany would be 'down' no matter how much financial power it accumulates - i.e regardless
of NS2.
The imperial garrison at Rammstein AFB will make sure of that.
Putin not too long ago (can't find the article now) said he was prepared to help Europe
gain its independence should they wish to do so, Rammstein or no Rammstein.
What the Americans fear is the symbolic meaning of NS2 in terms of geopolitical influence
for Russia. The loss of maneuverability against Russia that results from a key vassal not
being able to move in complete obedience to Uncle Sam's wishes.
What they fear should this deal go ahead is a Germany/Russia/China Axis that would control
the world island and thus the world.
I was convinced that the US of Assholery had lost its infantile anti-NS2 'battle' in
September 2020, after watching an episode of DW Conflict Zone in which Sarah Kelly
interviewed Niels Annen, Germany's Deputy FM. Annen came to the interview armed to the teeth
with embarrassing facts about US hypocrisy including, but not limited to, the fact that USA,
itself, buys vast quantities of petroleum products from Russia each year.
The interview is Google-able and, apart from pure entertainment value, Sarah is much
easier on the eye than Tim Sebastian...
1. China is ruthless. They waited until the last possible second to sign a deal with Iran, thus ensuring they are
getting the best possible price for Iran's oil, basically robbing Iran blind.
Hmmm... I seem to remember Iran shafting China on the south Pars gas field when it looked like the JCPOA was looking
likely...
If this memory of mine was correct (it may not be) then you really can't blame China for a little commercial payback.
In any case it was shown as soon as JCPOA Mk.1 was passed Iran RAN, not walked, to smooch up to the west for business, not
China, not Russia. So if its just business for Iran then its just business for China.
In our eagerness to expose the empire's shortcomings in a quick 'gotcha!' moment we
shouldn't rush head first into false premises. To suggest Dear Uncle Sam is concerned with
anything other than his own navel is naive. He's the man with the plan. He knows that down
the road, Oceania's eastern border won't run along the Dnieper but right off the shore of
Airstrip One.
As has been mentioned before, the NN2 pipeline gives Germany leverage over Russia ,
not the other way around.
US => Germany => Russia.
Which is now plan b for the US. If then they can use their leverage over Germany to
steer it in any direction it wants to vs. Russia.
This will probably be followed by "targeted" sanctions on specific Politicians, Bankers
and Heads of industry. They only need to propose such sanctions individually for them
to have an effect. Using Pegasus for inside information to Blackmail those it wants to.
*****
Example of a sanctions racket :
Similar to the potential sanctions on any Lebanese Politian or Group Leaders if they get Oil
from Iran, Russia or China. The Lebanese population be damned.
"Apparently US Treasury has informed the government of Lebanon, that if any Oil
products from Iran make it into Lebanon, in any way; the government of Lebanon and all its
members will be sanctioned. This includes the Central Bankers"
Just in case you didn't understand how the crisis in the country is manufactured.
Pegasus again:
"leaks on the targets of Israeli spy program Pegasus, show hundreds in
Lebanon including the elected leadership of every party, every media outlet, & every
security agency, have been targeted by clients in 10 countries; all belonging to the
Imperialist camp.
But it is very easy to guess by looking at who are the external imperialist forces
active in Lebanon. USA/UK/France/Turkey/Germany/Canada/Israel/Qatar; that's eight. Plus Saudi
Arabia." *******
PS. Lebanon; This comes as a response to Sayyed Nasrallah stating in his last speech
that if the State in Lebanon is not able to provide fuel, he will bring it at the expense of
Hizbullah from Iran, dock it in the port of Beirut, and dared anyone to stop it from reaching
the people.
*****
Germany will only be the latest victim as the Mafia-US "protection" racket is ramped
up.
Both b and the many commenters raise excellent points. Yes, the US wants to hurt both Russia
and Germany. And yes the US *definitely* fears close cooperation between Moscow and Berlin.
But the main take home lesson is that the US failed despite enormous efforts to block NS2.
Russo-German cooperation is inevitable and the world will be better for it.
>>a lot of people think China is robbing Russia blind on the deal
Why would be Russia building Power of Siberia 2 and 3 to China then? Or selling LNG too?
You don't have much knowledge on the topic, the way it looks. A giant gas plant was built
near the border with China, the second biggest gas plant in the world, because the gas for
China is rich in rare elements, thus turning Russia in of the the biggest producers of
strategic helium, not to mention extracting many other rare elements. China gets gas that has
been cleaned of anything valuable from it, with the exception of the gas itself.
>>merkel is leaving anyway in September and thw Green party that will be taking
over
The latest polls show clear lead for CDU/CSU. And it looks like its too late.
>>the NS2 will never be 100 usable, tthe Green party will see to that. AT best it
will be only 50% usage.
Do you even follow what has been going on? Germany is free not to buy russian gas, that
is, to be left without gas if this is what it wants.
Do you see how nat gas prices exploded in Europe recently? Do you know why is that?
Because Russia refuses to sell additional volumes via Ukraine's network. It is a message to
finish the issues with NS 2 pipeline faster and then everything will be fine, there will be
plenty of space for new gas volumes, and the gas price will drop.
It is the UNSC resolutions of 2006, 2007 and 2010 which have laid the backbone for the
incremental diplomatic, economic and material warfare against Iran. Without them, there would
be no narrative framing Iran as an outlaw nor justification for crippling sanctions. That
Iran should even be subjected to the JCPOA is in itself an objective injustice.
Each of these resolutions could easily have been blocked by the two permanent members of
the UNSC we go to much lengths on this forum to depict as selfless adversaries of the Empire.
All they had to do was raise a finger and say niet. In other words, by their actions, these
two members placed Iran in a very disadvantageous trading position.
So, did they profit from this position of strength?
"According to the draft deal, obtained by Bloomberg, Washington and Berlin would
threaten sanctions and other retaliation if Russia 'tries to use energy as a weapon against
Ukraine', with Germany being obligated to take unspecified actions in the event of Russian
'misbehaviour' . [My Emphasis]
The article then turns to the interview:
"Professor Glenn Diesen of the University of South-Eastern Norway has explained what is
behind the US-Germany row is." [That last "is" appears to be a typo]
I suggest barflies pay close attention to Dr. Diesen who's the author of an outstanding
book on the geoeconomics of Russia and China, Russia's Geoeconomic Strategy for a Greater
Eurasia . I judge the following Q&A to be most relevant:
"Sputnik: The Biden administration waived sanctions on the firm behind the gas project,
Nord Stream 2 AG, and its chief executive, Matthias Warnig. At the same time, Secretary of
State Antony Blinken stated in June that the pipeline project was a Russian tool for the
coercion of Europe and signaled that the US has leverage against it. What's behind
Washington's mixed signals with regard to the project? How could they throw sand in Nord
Stream 2's gears, in your opinion - or are Blinken's threats empty?
"Glenn Diesen: The mixed signals demonstrate that the completion of Nord Stream 2 was a
defeat for the US. Biden confirmed that he waived sanctions because the project was near
complete. Sanctions could not stop the project [link at original], rather they would merely
continue to worsen relations with Berlin and Moscow. The best approach for Washington at this
point is to recognise that Nord Stream 2 is a done deal, and instead Washington will direct
its focus towards limiting the geo-economics consequences of the pipeline by obtaining
commitments from Berlin such as preserving Ukraine's role as a transit state [Link at
original].
"The US therefore waives sanctions against Nord Stream 2, yet threatens new sanctions if
Berlin fails to accept US conditions and limitations on Nord Stream 2. Blinken's threats
are loaded with 'strategic ambiguity', which could be aimed to conceal that they are merely
empty threats . However, strategic ambiguity is also conducive to prevent Berlin from
calculating the "costs" and possible remedies to US threats. Furthermore, ambiguity can be
ideal in terms of how to respond as it is not a good look to continuously threaten allies."
[Emphasis original]
The professor's closing remarks are also very important regarding Merkel's successor.
Where I disagree is with the notion that the Outlaw US Empire has geoeconomic leverage over
the EU--military yes, but the Empire is just as uncompetitive versus the EU as it is versus
China.
So, did they profit from this position of strength?
Of course they did, let's be real. China and Russia are not going to be the all benevolent saviors of the world, they never
were, never will.
They will always serve their interests first and foremost. Sometimes, they do get suckered
into UNSC resolutions like those you spoke of. Sometimes, there're backroom horse trading
that we're not privy to and little countries are just chips on the table...
The best we can hope for is that they can behave with more integrity than currently shown
by the incumbent anglospheric bloc in their re-ascendancy.
Either we ditch the UNSC system or everybody get nukes, because i can't see the current
UNSC members willing ditch their own, ever.
Lysander is correct.
The most important point to know is that US hegemony in Europe is predicated on fear and
hostility between Germany and Russia.
Types of interdependence between Germany and Russia, eg. NRG security, are a direct threat
to US dominance over Europe as a whole.
There are many limitations to European strategic autonomy -- and the EU embodies those
limits in many ways -- but the case of NS2 demonstrates an independent streak in German
strategy. It amounts to a zero sum loss for Washington.
Way too much confusion over what Nord Stream 2 really means.
1) Russian gas transiting Ukraine had already fallen from 150 bcm to the high 90s/low 100s
before Nord Stream 2 goes online.
Even after NS2 goes online, a significant amount of Russian gas will still transit via
Ukraine.
2) Energy demand generally increases over time, not decreases. Russian gas exports aren't
increasing in a straight line, but keep in mind that there are significant new competitors
now and in the process coming online. These include Azerbaijan as well as the ongoing
pipeline struggle through the Black Sea/Turkey/Eastern Med.
I never believed there was any chance of NS2 not completing; the only question was
when.
Lebanon does illustrate the incredible reach of the Empire. A leverage so long that every
door leads to self immolation. Your mention of the current spyware scandal is right on point.
These are instruments of absolute power.
What we need now is a worldwide Me Too movement to denounce this leverage. Taking that
first step would require a lot of courage for any blackmailed individual, but the one little
breach could lead to a flood of world citizens just about fed up with the Empire's shit.
It pains me that I do not remember exactly who it was, but one of the more erudite posters
here mentioned some time ago that Trump seemed more like a Bonapartist figure than a fascist
or a typical and simple representative of a faction in the oligarchy. While Trump is
certainly no representative of humanity, it just as certainly doesn't look like his rise was
in the playbook of the dominant faction of the oligarchy. Trump really seems to fit the mould
of a Bonapartist, though recast in the context of contemporary America. This would indicate
that the imperial oligarchy is in crisis, which itself could lead to fractures in the empire,
and among the empire's vassals in particular.
It is unwise to downplay the significance of Trump coming to power in 2016, regardless of
what feelings one may have about the individual himself. The conditions that led to the rise
of Trump not only persist, but have intensified. Those conditions cannot be resolved by mass
media gaslighting and social media censorship, which actually seems to be having an effect
more like holding the emergency relief valve on a boiler closed; it quiets an annoying sound,
but causes the underlying issue to grow more severe.
Basically, further splits in the EU are inevitable. It is the timing of those splits that
is difficult to predict, but the accuracy of that prediction hinges upon the accuracy of our
assessment of events occurring now. Interestingly, Trump is still part of these unfolding
events.
Fracturing NATO and the West hmmm ... If Germany gains any independence from U.S.
coercion they are 'fracturing Europe'. Bad Germany.
Germany must forever remain a vassal state of the U.S. by allowing the U.S. to use another
vassal state to control their energy supply. And who says we don't believe in freedom. Neocons are such vile creatures. Always twisting words but remember, whenever they say
something, the exact opposite is true.
One issue underlying this fiasco is I believe that the neocons / Atlantic Council were 100%
certain that Russia did not have the expertise to lay pipelines at the required depths, and
once Allseas was facing sanctions, the project would never be completed.
I believe that the exact pricing formula for Power of Siberia is confidential, but this
much is known:
"The price of Russian gas supplies to China increased in the second quarter of 2021 for
the first time since deliveries started via the Power of Siberia pipeline in 2019, but daily
delivery volumes fell in April, Interfax reported on Sunday.
Russian gas giant Gazprom GAZP.MM has said it supplied China with 3.84 billion cubic
metres of gas via the Power of Siberia pipeline in its first year of operation.
Citing Chinese customs data, Interfax said the price of gas increased to $148 per thousand
cubic metres, rising from $121 in the first quarter, and reversing a downward trend."
Also, Victoria Nuland informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today about Biden's
cave to Russia. That must have been brutal for her. Regardless, nice to see a rare display of
sanity from s US administration.
The primary and only objective of the US Foreign policy vis-a-vis Europe since WW2 has
been to prevent Russia and Germany (now read the German run EU project) coupling up, that's
it, nothing else matters on Europe.
The completion of N-2 presents a serious blow tho this aim, the new pipeline is a must for
Germany, it must get finished, without it Germany's supply of energy would have been almost
fully controlled by the Americans who have either direct or indirect authority over every
major source of hydrocarbons except for Venezuela and Russia, the latter only partly, the
Ukrainian pipeline is fully in their sphere of influence.
Energy fuels everything from private dwellings to major corporations, it's together with
labour and technology the most important ingredient in every economy. To lose control of it
would have been a catastrophe for Germany, in particular if one takes into account the secret
treaty between Germany and the Allies (read the US) from 1949.
"On 23 May 1949, the Western Allies ratified a new German constitution, known as the
"Basic Law" or Grundgesetz.
However, two days prior, a secret state treaty - Geheimer Staatsvertrag - was also signed to
grant complete Allied
control over education and all licensed media, press, radio, television and publishing houses
until the year 2099.
This was confirmed by Major-General Gerd-Helmut Komossa, former head of German Military
Intelligence in his
book, "Die Deutsche Karte" or The German Card".
What's interesting about Power of Siberia-1 is that the gas is being stripped -- refined at
the newly completed Amur Gas Plant -- of its components prior to being piped into China. I
don't know if Germany's petrochemical industry will be deprived in similar manner with
NS2.
CD Waller @36--
Nothing in the energy production realm is carbon neutral. ROSATOM has mastered the fuel
cycle which means most if not all toxic waste will now be burned for energy. New reactors do
NOT use water as coolant. Clearly you need to update what you know about nuclear power.
The Russian 'victory' is very narrow and mostly consists of the patience and determination to
follow-thru while consistently being derided/attacked by Western media, pundits, and
politicians:
Since Russia/Gasprom owns NS2 100% (paying for half the construction cost outright and
financing the rest), there was never much need to stop construction, only to stop/limit
consumption. The 'trick' was to find a way to accomplish US/NATO goals that would not make
German leaders look like puppets.
Biden's approach looks good compared to Trump's heavy-handed approach. As they are BOTH
spokesman of the Empire's Deep State, we can surmise that this is merely good cop / bad cop
theatrics.
This USA-GERMAN agreement makes Germany appear to voluntarily support EU/NATO -
a good thing(tm) that most Germans will accept without question. But behind the scenes,
it's unlikely that there was ever any real choice, just a mutual desire to fashion a
'smart' policy that didn't undermine German political leaders.
Germany can now be pressured to support USA-Ukraine belligerence - if they don't they
will be portrayed as not living up to their obligations to US/NATO/EU/Ukraine as enshrined
in this agreement.
If Russia retaliates against German purchase reductions in any way they will be labeled
as a politically-driven, unreliable supplier. That will 'invite' sanctions and spark
efforts to force EU/Germany to eliminate all Russia goods from their markets.
Russia and China are likely to be increasingly linked in Western media/propaganda.
Deficiencies of one or the other will apply to BOTH.
The next few winters in EU will be very interesting.
Jackrabbit @41 incorrectly says Russia owns NS2 100% It's owned by Nord Stream 2 AG, and
here's its
website listing its financial investors, while its shareholders/owners are global. The
company is located in Zug, Switzerland. Here we are told who the financial companies
are :
"In April 2017, Nord Stream 2 AG signed the financing agreements for the Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline project with ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper, and Wintershall. These five
European energy companies will provide long-term financing for 50 per cent of the total cost
of the project."
As with the first string, Russia doesn't own it 100% nor did it finance it completely;
rather, its stake was @50% It appears both Nord Streams will be managed from the same
location in Zug. I hope the company produces a similar sort of book to record its
accomplishment as it did for the first string pair, which can be found and downloaded here
.
Who is paying for it: Russia's energy giant Gazprom is the sole shareholder of the
Nord Stream 2 AG , the company in charge of implementing the €9.5 billion ($11.1
billion) project. Gazprom is also covering half of the cost. The rest, however, is being
financed by five western companies: ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper and
Wintershall.
Emphasis is mine.
<> <> <> <> <>
Nord Stream 2 AG is a German company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Russia's
Gazprom. The German subsidiary has borrowed half of the construction cost but is 100% owner
of the NS2 project.
From karlof1's link to Nord Stream 2 AG's Shareholder and Financial Investors page makes it
clear that NordStream 2 AG is a subsidiary of Gazprom international projects LLC, which is,
in turn, a subsidiary of Gazprom. Under "Shareholder" there is only one company listed:
Gasprom.
PS I was mistaken: Nord Stream 2 AG is a Swiss company, not a German one.
"4. Germany can now be pressured to support USA-Ukraine belligerence - if they don't they
will be portrayed as not living up to their obligations to US/NATO/EU/Ukraine as enshrined in
this agreement.
If Russia retaliates against German purchase reductions in any way they will be labeled as
a politically-driven, unreliable supplier. That will 'invite' sanctions and spark efforts to
force EU/Germany to eliminate all Russia goods from their markets."
Germany has been portrayed as not living up to its NATO obligations one way or another
since about 1985, and with respect to NS 2, since 2018. They do not seem fazed - maybe a
Green win would change that. If the USA-Ukraine get (more) belligerent, Germany might be less
likely to insist on Ukraine gas transit after 2024.
The Russian government owns a majority of Gazprom. As majority owner they can be said to
control the company and with that control comes an inescapable political dimension.
For the purposes of this discussion: the Russian government has biggest stake in the
financial success of Nord Stream 2. That "success" depends on gas sold, not simply the
completion of NS2 construction.
Merkel is meeting with President Joe Biden on Thursday this week, and said while
she will discuss the issue at the White House, she does not believe the matter will be resolved
at that time.
"I don't know whether the papers will be fully finalized, so to speak. I believe rather
not," Merkel said. "But these will be important talks for developing a common position."
Sanctions imposed against German companies involved in the project by the U.S. were recently
waived, which raised hopes in Berlin that the two countries may soon be able to find an
acceptable agreement on the matter.
For more reporting from the Associated Press, see below.
Washington has long argued that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline carrying natural gas from Russia
to Germany endangers Europe's energy security and harms allies such as Ukraine, which currently
profits from transit fees for Russian gas.
Germany is keen to increase its use of natural gas as it completes the shutdown of its
nuclear power plants next year and phases out the use of heavily polluting coal by 2038.
Merkel's comments to reporters in Berlin came ahead of a meeting with Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has warned that Nord Stream 2 poses a threat to his country's energy
security. Should Russia route all of its gas around Ukraine in the future, the country might be
cut off from the supplies it needs, putting it at further risk of being pressured by
Moscow.
Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and supports separatists in Ukraine's eastern
industrial heartland of Donbas.
Zelenskyy said he was looking for guarantees that Ukraine will remain a transit country for
Russian gas beyond 2024. He also suggested that the gas issue should become part of four-way
talks between his country, Russia, Germany and France on solving the conflict in eastern
Ukraine and that the United States could join those negotiations.
Merkel said she took Ukraine's concerns seriously and that Germany and the European Union would use
their weight in negotiations with Russia to ensure the agreements are extended.
"We have promised this to Ukraine and we will stick to that. I keep my promises and I
believe that is true also for any future German chancellor," she said.
Merkel isn't running for a fifth term in Germany's national election on Sept.
26.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, not
pictured, give statements ahead of talks at the Chancellery in Berlin, Monday, July 12, 2021.
Stefanie Loos/Pool Photo via AP
I admit to some amusement over the suspension of the female American sprinter Sha'Carri
Richardson by WADA. Imagine if she were Russian. WADA has waged a political war against
Russian Olympians ruling against the entire national team most of whom never used performance
enhancing drugs according to independent testing. And now the expected cries of racism
against a blood test for a banned drug. Sort of ironic I suppose, but watched a clips of
several African American sports pundits and they all agreed that rules are rules and must be
followed. It has been mostly white pundits who have virtue signaled that her suspension must
be lifted due to racism.
Russia under Putin stewardship has been doing more than just good given the disaster of
Yeltsin period. That's said. Russia now is just a one-man-Putin show. It's not the "Russian
system of governance."
So, the question is what would happen after Putin?
Given the fact that several "oligarchies" are pulling their strings around Putin,
another-Yeltsin is waiting at the gate of Kremlin is very likely. I hope I am wrong for the
Russians' best interests!
We should know for sure sometime between January and December 2022. We will know when it is
confirmed that Russia is in decline. That will be the tipping point. Many producers are already
in decline but Russia is now the largest. Of course, the US being in decline, the two largest
producers in the world, would leave no doubt about it. LIGHTSOUT IGNORED07/03/2021 at 11:47
am
Thanks Ovi. KSA,Russia and US are starting to look like a line of domino's.
Iraqi Oil Minister Ihsan Abdul Jabbar said in a video posted on Saturday on the
ministry's Facebook page that BP (BP.L) was considering withdrawing from Iraq, and that
Russia's Lukoil (LKOH.MM) had sent a formal notification saying it wanted to sell its stake in
the West Qurna-2 field to Chinese companies.
Iraq's top tax authority has ordered government departments to stop issuing visas and
halt imports for nearly two dozen international energy companies whom it accuses of late tax
payments.
If enforced, the orders, dated June 27, 2021, could prevent some of the biggest players
in Iraq's oil, gas, and electricity sectors from bringing staff and equipment into Iraq,
effectively depriving the country of work that is needed to meet its own production targets at
a time when insufficient gas feedstock is causing nationwide electricity failures.
The power cuts have hit the south of Iraq especially hard. In Basra, where Iraq's oil
wells are situated, people have started taking to the streets in protest and main roads had to
be shut down.POLLUX IGNORED07/03/2021 at 2:59
pm
An official of Iranian Truck and Fuel Tanker Drivers' Union said Thursday that drivers
were refusing to transport fuel due to low or late payments from the government. There has been
a shortage of supply in gasoline stations in recent days in various parts of the
country.
In a statement published on social media Thursday, the National Association of Drivers'
Unions expressed solidarity with striking contract oil and petrochemical workers and said
drivers would join their strike if the oil workers' demands were ignored.
Putin
Signs Law Forcing Foreign Social Media Giants To Open Russian Offices (reuters.com) 47
Posted by msmash on Thursday July 01, 2021 @12:45PM from the how-about-that dept. President
Vladimir Putin has signed a law that
obliges foreign social media giants to open offices in Russia , a document published by the
government on Thursday showed, the latest move by Moscow to exert greater control over Big
Tech. From a report: The Russian authorities are keen to strengthen their control of the
internet and to reduce their dependence on foreign companies and countries. In particular, they
have objected in the past to political opponents of the Kremlin using foreign social media
platforms to organise what they say are illegal protests and to publicise politically-tinged
investigations into alleged corruption. Moscow has fined firms for failing to delete content it
says is illegal, slowing down the speed of Twitter as punishment, and on Wednesday opened a new
case against Alphabet subsidiary Google for breaching personal data legislation. by
Vlijmen Fileer ( 120268 ) on
Thursday July 01, 2021 @12:47PM ( #61540686 )
Other countries do the same. But somehow get less media attention for it
MH17, I had originally thought was a US ploy, but a lot of stuff points to Britain. I
think Britain pulled that stunt, no doubt coordinated with factions in the US, and it was
enough to tip the balance in the US - to force the US into action who then put pressure on
the Euro vassals.
Where the US oligarchy is a bit divided, not much of an incident is required by perfidious
albion to tip the balance.
Weaver "China seems to have defined "communism" as a rejection of democracy."
What is democracy? In the west, it has become apparent that whoever controls the media
controls democracy. We elect rulers. We do not get any say in formulating many laws as in
each new law being put to a referendum. China voted with its feet during the revolution. Many
culture elect or otherwise have local leaders who everyone in the community knows and the
community leaders decide on or elect who has positions at the next level of governance and so
forth. In that way, China is very democratic beginning at the grass roots level.
The Chinese government have done a huge amount in bringing millions of people out of poverty,
creating better living conditions for its people. When there is constantly and increase in
prosperity at all levels, even if some prosper more than others, the people have an
optimistic outlook.
Democracy at a national level where voters do not personal know the candidate requires
accurate information to enable an informed vote. In that way, democracy in the west is non
existent - it is an illusion but the sheeple cling to it.
Compared to the so called west, China government is very much of the people for the
people.
@ Peter AU1 (# 23), name a democracy that isn't a suzerainty. We don't elect rulers. We
elect puppets that have been selected by the rulers. Who owns the media? Who creates majority
of money in your nation?
"The true equation is 'democracy' = government by world financiers."
– J.R.R. Tolkien
"Democracy" is a temporary phase of history which allows the Global Financial Syndicate to
take control from the earlier generation of dominant power players: the monarchies.
Long ago and far away, a group of very clever paleo-banksters figured out a way to stop
those annoying periodic slave revolts... eventually it came to be known as "the two party
system" (democracy/Republic) and it's working like a charm...Rulers make the slaves fight
each other.
World Financiers & Banksters ENSLAVEMENT plan using democracy:
– Create a REVOLUTION & steal a region
– Create a Private CENTRAL BANK (First Bank of the USA, BoE-1694)
– Fund & control new rich individuals (Kleptocrats)
– Fund & control political PARTIES & MEDIA
– Nationalize the central bank (the Fed, BoE-1946)
Enslave & control people by DOMINANCE over economic & political powers & call
it a DEMOCRACY. An interesting FRACTAL emerges when one analysis the formation of
democracies.
What we have is "representative" democracies designed by the economically powerful solely
for their interests and in this sense would always be functioning anti-democratically. In a
money democracy (where the fundamental element of influence is the unit of money), the
political and legal system is influenced and shaped by systems of power to protect and
enhance those systems of power.
"There are none so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The
truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They
feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes."
– Goethe
Your understanding of democracy and the prevalent Chinese understanding of democracy are
divergent.
It is true that all of the political decisions in China are made by the communists; the
CPC. But do note that the CPC has almost 100 million members . These are not simply
voters like political parties have in the US, who just align themselves with a party
and vote for it every couple years. These 100 million members of the CPC are actual
decision-makers.
Of course, that is a lot of work and responsibility and not everyone in China wants to
commit that much of their life to politics. With that said, how much of your life do
you commit to politics? Does your biennial vote actually carry any weight, and do you take
full responsibility for the consequences of it? Of course not on both points.
Those Chinese people who choose to do so live democracy. You, on the other hand,
just play a shallow democracy game that is little more than a reality TV show like
Survivor . Does Trump get voted off the island? Clinton? Sanders? That is your choice.
Does America slaughter some more dark skinned people in the Global South? Do the banks get
bailed out with your wealth? These things you get no say in.
Communists don't oppose democracy. They oppose the crappy reality TV "The Democracy
Show!™" sham that westerners love to hate.
I look on it as somewhat of a mixed group. Fellow travelers do the same thing but for
different reasons. Finance, anglo supremacy ect. Amongst the vassal states in same cases
straight out corruption as in selling their service es to the highest bidder, amongst the
five-eyes, the elite in particular, in the current events of trying to bring down Russia and
China, continued anglo dominance of the world is a very big driver. The anglosphere has been
a dominant force in the world for close to 500 years and many are truly afraid of this
ending. The cant envisage a world that is dominated by cultures other than anglo or
anglo/europe.
What is the fastest way to create lots of DEBT (money)? Wars, civil war, technological
waves, credit bubbles (speculative, housing,...), infrastructures...
What is the real purpose of war? To capture & control more areas for EXPLOITATION? War
is the fastest way to create lots of debt for all parties.
"the real value of a conflict, the true value, is in the debt it creates. You control the
debt, you control everything."
Money Power = Land x Lives x Loans
Putting Afghanistan in further debt, enables it to be exploited... What are its revenue
sources? Who pays for its security and infrastructure? Will NATO leave by September?
Who wants to make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt?
Those Uyghur jihadists stuck in Idlib province in Syria and in refugee camps in Turkey are
bound to get a warm welcome from the Taliban when Ankara finally ships them off to Kabul as
part of this proposed "security force" to protect the airport so the CIA can continue to ship
out its heroin.
The US MSM is ablaze with "Taliban against Afghan forces" headlines, conveniently forgetting
that the Taliban are Afghan forces too, in fact they preceded the current "Afghan forces" in
government until the US intervention.
So why do their guys always beat our guys? Because their guys fight for their country and our
guys fight for us.
@ ToivoS, why did the U$A withdraw from Vietnam? There was conscription in the U$A, thereby
the rich were at risk. Also, the U$A was being constrained by money creation due to the gold
standard. Both of these issues have been addressed.
Name a nation that the U$A has WITHDRAWN its military after occupying it, other than
Vietnam. Aren't we still in Germany, Japan, South Korea, ...?
It ain't over 'til it's over.
How much DEBT has the Afghanistan conflict created so far? In trillions? Who got that
money?
@ CJC #10
re: . . . Turkey to retain control of airport after NATO withdraws
It's more than NATO.
The US-Taliban agreement:
The United States is committed to withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United
States, its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel,
private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel within
fourteen (14) months following announcement of this agreement. . .
here
@ Max
re: . . . why did the U$A withdraw from Vietnam?
The US had no choice because the conscription-based US Army was broken, with troops refusing
to obey orders and fragging their superiors etc. . .So Washington pulled out the troops and
ended the draft.
The US "experts" who are crying about a possible, or inevitable, return to Talban
government haven't read the agreement.
The US-Taliban Agreement of Feb 29, 2020 called for all foreign forces to leave Afghanistan
by May 2021, and recognized that the outcome would be a return to a Taliban government. For
example one agreement condition, II-5:: "The Taliban will not provide visas, passports,
travel permits, or other legal documents to those who pose a threat to the security of the
United States and its allies to enter Afghanistan." . .
here
re: Why is the US in Afghanistan?
Decades ago Washington had its own "Silk Road" strategy, to move into the -Stans in Central
Asia after the uSSR breakup. There was a large interest in Kazakhstan up north, as well as
the other -Stands including Afghanistan. It was of course a road to nowhere but as we know
the creeps in Washington ain't too bright. There were no seaports to accommodate this road,
for one thing. There were some other considerations, like an energy pipeline, but it was all
just going nowhere until 9-11 came along, giving the US to do what it does worst, employ its
military.
@ Abe 32
re: This simplistic "views" are as inaccurate as insulting.
You need to get out more.
. . .from Fragging: Why U.S. Soldiers Assaulted Their Officers in Vietnam
During its long withdrawal from South Vietnam, the U.S. military experienced a serious
crisis in morale. Chronic indiscipline, illegal drug use, and racial militancy all
contributed to trouble within the ranks. But most chilling of all was the advent of a new
phenomenon: large numbers of young enlisted men turning their weapons on their superiors.
The practice was known as "fragging," a reference to the fragmentation hand grenades often
used in these assaults. . . here
Glad to hear that Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan is not letting the US use Pakistan
as a base for its continued machinations, in spite of heavy US pressure, and that Pakistan as
a whole was saying #AbsolutelyNot. Kudos Pakistan.
According to M. K. Bhadrakumar:
"Washington is now considering the hiring of Pentagon contractors (mercenaries) to secure
Kabul airport. But that will be a hugely controversial step with grave consequences, as
apparent from Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan's brusque rejection of the very idea of
American military presence on Pakistani soil in relation to the Afghan situation."
MKB also places all this into the context of "the US' grand project to create rings of
instability in [Russia and China's] adjacent regions -- Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Hong
Kong, Myanmar, Afghanistan."
You forget the ISIS group that magically appeared in Afghanistan a few years ago. The same
group that immediately attacked the Taliban, forcing the Taliban to dedicate its best forces
to countering the threat instead of fighting the puppet child sex slaver Quisling warlord
regime. What's more likely than continuing the occupation in the name of "fighting ISIS"?
Just like Iraq was reinvaded and reoccupied in the name of "fighting ISIS" and continues to
be occupied to this day?
This "fairly good" relationship is mainly done in spite to China and to gain another pawn
on the SCS theatre.
It's being wined and dined by the school jock after China gave him the finger like a
back-up shag. But Vietnam knows the score, it works for them for now and it would be stupid
not to play along as long as it is aligned to its interests.
A large number of its businesses exporting to the west are, you guessed it, are founded
and operated by the Chinese for the lower wages and to skirt quotas, tariffs etc.
Vietnam is still a communist state, how is this fact not lost in the face of full spectrum
demonisation of China for being communists in the minds of the 5 eyes populace is a most
interesting question indeed.
It's as moronic as "China is authoritarian!" but Saudi Arabia is A-OK!
Today democracy and human rights are just fig leaves of the hegemony, war cry for the
[colonization of] expendables.
Of course you've heard the name " George Soros ," often invoked as a sort of folk demon on the
American and international right, it's likely that you have some vague notion of why you think
he's a bad guy, or maybe you think the whole thing is a bunch of hype.
However, if you're a freedom lover, there's nothing "hype" about the influence that George
Soros has around the world attacking your freedom. Indeed, you probably vastly underestimate
the influence that he has on politics.
From the perspective of someone who values life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
there is no more dangerous man today than George Soros. This is not hyperbole, it is the simple
truth. While we don't plan to paint a picture of a man standing behind the scenes, rubbing his
hands together and cackling as he plays puppet master over each and every attack on freedom
around the world, Soros acts as a strawman and a caricature of what is actually going on in the
world.
George Soros, his
money , and his NGOs
are bankrolling and influencing public policy and opinion from the local level all the way up
to the national level. Entire nations have been made to bow to the Soros agenda, but perhaps
more importantly for our purposes, key local officials in government are increasingly wholly
owned subsidiaries of the Soros machine.
American political culture focuses almost entirely on Presidential elections, with
Congressional and gubernatorial races getting much less attention from the general public. When
it comes to local politics, unless you live in a large city, chances are good that you don't
know much about city politics. For example: Who is your local district attorney or county
prosecutor?
Most people have no idea. It's a low-key office, generally staffed by someone looking to do
public service, not advance their career. There is little glamor, low pay, and lots of
thankless work to be done at this level, which means that for the most part, this is not where
social climbers begin their careers.
That being said, these elected officials have enormous amounts of power because they decide
who gets prosecuted, who doesn't, and what charges are levied against them. If your DA decides
that the local band of looters are actually peaceful protesters, they won't ever see the inside
of a courtroom. Similarly, if the local DA isn't a fan of the right to self-defense, one must
consider this when choosing whether or not to pull your firearm if a mob of them shows up on
your lawn.
Part of this is just the very nature of bureaucracy, the plainer term for what people mean
when they talk about "the deep state." The government rests on men doing things, chief among
these are what Vladimir Lenin called "special bodies of armed men"
: cops, courts, and jails. According to Lenin, this is the very essence of the state.
Libertarians will sympathize with this definition of the state. At its core, the state is a man
with a gun who will throw you in a cage or kill you if you fail to comply. Everything else is
just window dressing.
The local prosecutor is a chokepoint in the special bodies of armed men. The attorney
general isn't euphemistically called "top cop" for no reason and in his own way, the local
prosecutor is also a "top cop," albeit with a much smaller jurisdiction. This also means that
he has more direct control over the individuals in his district, as the attorney general deals
more in broad brushstrokes.
Who is your local DA? George Soros knows. He might very well be his paymaster.The campaigns
for local DAs and the like aren't shy about stoking racial resentment and animosity. The
Democratic Party's playbook hasn't changed much since the days of Jim Crow, it's just that it
has found new ways to make political hay out of sowing racial divisions among Americans. One
Soros-produced ad for Noah Phillips campaign for District Attorney of Sacramento County,
focuses almost exclusively on a black
boy in a hoodie .
It is of course unrealistic to expect that even highly bureaucratic roles are entirely
apolitical, however, the Soros DAs have ratcheted up the partisanship, not just in the race,
but in the actual execution of the office. As of September 2020, there were
31 Soros-backed DAs in the United States . That might not sound like a lot, but it includes
the DAs of Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Portland, San Francisco, and St.
Louis. All told, tens of millions of Americans are now victims of the Soros racket in the form
of their local top prosecutor.
Some examples of the Soros machine at work in America's DA offices include:
After the last round of rioting, looting, and arson in St. Louis, Circuit Attorney Kim
Gardner dismissed charges against all 36 people arrested. She's on the take from Soros for
$307,000 . This is also the prosecutor who filed charges against the McCloskeys.
Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon got over $2 million
from the Soros operation , he ended cash bail and is no longer prosecuting the crimes
of trespassing, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, prostitution, or driving without a
license.
Kim Foxx is the Illinois State's Attorney and has received
$807,000 from Soros. She also declined to prosecute rioters, saying "The question it
comes down to is, is it a good use of our time and resources? No, it's not." Foxx likewise
declined to prosecute hate crime hoaxer, Jussie Smollett.
Philly District Attorney Larry Krasner has received
$1.7 million from Soros. He won't be prosecuting rioters, looters, and arsonists.
Krasner was very open about the ideology driving his permitting chaos in the city:
"Prosecution alone will achieve nothing close to justice -- not when power imbalances and
lack of accountability make it possible for government actors including police or
prosecutors to regularly take life or liberty unjustly and face no criminal or career
penalty."
Krasner is worth calling out for special attention because he filed 75 cases against the
police and has represented both Occupy Philadelphia and Black Lives Matter. At his victory
party, supporters chanted, "F*** the police! F*** the police!" He generally declines to
call himself a "prosecutor," instead labelling himself a "public defender with power."
The results in Philadelphia are stunning as charges are dropped in 60 percent of all
shooting cases – though we suspect your odds of being a conservative self-defense
case and having your charges waived are rather slim. Shootings in Philadelphia were up 57
percent year over year from 2019 to 2020.
San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who's working off
$620,000 in Soros money, proclaims that "[t]he criminal justice system isn't just
massive and brutal, it's also racist." He doesn't prosecute crimes such as solicitation,
public camping, or public urination, which has certainly
transformed San Francisco into a paradise on earth . Homicide rates have increased,
burglary cases have increased by 42 percent, motor vehicle theft increased by 31 percent,
and arson rates increased by 45 percent. He was formerly an advisor to Hugo Chavez and his
parents were members of the Weather
Underground , a far-left terrorist organization who directly participated in the
robbery of an armored car. His victory party included obscene anti-police chants.
DA Mike Schmidt of Portland, who's received
$230,000 in Soros money, also declined to prosecute rioters who burned the city for
months while besieging a federal building. He openly sympathized with the rioters saying
that they "represent the instinctive reactions of people who have been gassed repeatedly,
who have been struck with kinetic projectile weapons."
If the Soros machine can capture a District Attorney's office in San Francisco, which is
extremely expensive, there is little preventing them from capturing prosecutorial powers in
Omaha, Annapolis, or Colorado Springs – or indeed your hamlet.
The Soros Machine
and Racial Unrest
Much like the Democrat Party he supports, George Soros is not the slightest bit afraid to go
into the mud of the politics of racial resentment. The Open Society Foundations are the primary
mechanism for Soros delivering money to political activists in the United States and around the
world. In 2020, The Open Society Foundations unveiled plans to spend
$220 million on "efforts to achieve racial equality in America."
To show you the relative priority that the Soros machine places on "racial equality" as
opposed to electoral politics, the Soros machine only spent
$28 million on the Democrat Party in 2020 .
When Soros says "racial equality," he means something very different from what you or the
average American means when they say it. What Soros deems "racial equality" might more
accurately be called "racial revenge," though the left prefers to use the term "racial equity."
We will dive more into the ideology motivating Soros later, but our article on
the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism is also an excellent resource on the deep
philosophy of the Soros machine.
What Are the Open Society Foundations?
It's important to know how the Soros machine operates so that you can learn to look for it.
The Open Society Foundations is the main umbrella under which Soros distributes money. It
includes a number of organizations, most of which you've probably never heard of and most of
which feature very innocuous, even bland-sounding, names. The think tank used to generate the
ideology is New America, formerly known as the New America Foundation, the name of which is
much more direct about what it intends to create.
So what is an "Open Society?" Well it's based on a phrase used by Karl Popper , a
somewhat obscure 20th Century thinker known best for his " paradox of tolerance ," which
essentially says that liberals should stop tolerating diversity of opinion when it begins to
threaten liberalism.
Where does the Soros operation put its money in America in order to transform the country
into an "open society?" It aims to abolishing
the police and invest $1.5 million into the Community Resource Hub for Safety &
Responsibility, another one of these blandly named organizations working to undo the American
way of life. Additionally, his money has been
linked to the urban unrest in Ferguson in 2014 . In total he spent
$33 million fomenting chaos in the formerly safe suburb of St. Louis.
Of course, no rogue's gallery of the radical left would be complete without mentioning Black
Lives Matter (BLM), another one of these vaguely innocuous-sounding organizations that Soros
spends his money on. And boy howdy, did he spend money on BLM - George Soros spent
$33 million on BLM alone .
What Is the Philosophy of the Open Society
Foundations?
We've seen the modus operandi of the Soros machine, but what is the ideology that motivates
it?
Soros' umbrella organization is The Open Society Foundations. The phrase "open society" is
one of those things that sounds so unassailable that no one could be against it. After all, are
you for a closed society?
This is the framing trick used by the left since time immemorial. Something vague and
innocuous sounding is picked as a name which means something very, very different to those in
the know. So what is an "open society" to Soros and his retinue?
It is a concept developed by Karl Popper, Soros' intellectual hero. Popper was not a
Cultural Marxist, in fact he was highly critical of Marxism. However, there is so much overlap
in terms of end results that it becomes a distinction without a difference.
Karl Popper didn't invent the concept of the open society, despite his association with the
term and his development of the idea – that dubious honor falls to a Frenchman by the
name of Henri Bergson. However, we can credit most of what the open society is understood as
today as springing from the mind of Karl Popper.
There are some key takeaways about what an open society actually is. First, the open society
is an atomized society. People are to be seen not as part of any kind of social organism, but
rather as radically separate individuals. The individual is not an essential building block of
society, it is the end to itself. Social norms and traditions are seen as necessarily
oppressive.
The open society is hostile to the notion of natural law and instead puts man-made laws,
properly called "legislation," over and above a more natural law flowing from a set of first
principles, most notably God. Again, like Cultural Marxism, it seeks to "dethrone God" from
society, replacing it with a cult of human judgment.
Popper also believed in a culture of constant critique, this is a point of overlap with
Cultural Marxism; and humanitarianism, which is a loaded word designed to sound innocuous, but
which actually means something far more specific than "being nice to people."
Perhaps most frighteningly, the "open society" is just that – open. That is, entirely
without any sort of privacy. While the notion of a "right to privacy" as interpreted by United
States courts as a justification is troubling in practice, far more troubling is Popper's
conception of a society where every facet of a person's life is in the public sphere,
irregardless of their consent.
Free speech and free elections were seen as a necessity for such a society, however, Popper
and the Open Society Foundations had different interpretations for this. Free speech does not
apply to opponents of the open society unless they are critiquing society from the left –
the only way to complain about Comrade Stalin is to say how much better we would all be if
there were but two of him. Similarly, free elections means that of the kind we had in 2020
– one with absolutely no safeguards against abuse and taking place behind closed doors
under the supervision of ideologically motivated "monitors" with rampant fraud.
It's not just in America, it's a worldwide phenomenon.
George Soros: King of the Color
Revolution
George Soros' primary weapon for changing countries to be more pliable to his desires is the
"color revolution." You've probably heard of revolutions occurring, generally in post-Soviet
states, but also elsewhere. They have names like the Yellow Revolution (the Philippines), the
Rose Revolution (Republic of Georgia), the Orange Revolution (Ukraine), and the Saffron
Revolution (Myanmar).
There are some common themes to a color revolution which are worth noting for those wishing
to prevent such a thing from happening in their own country. A disputed election where there is
widespread cheating on the part of the "opposition" candidate generally kicks things off. The
"opposition" is controlled by the Soros machine and friendly to NATO or other Atlantacist
political organizations. There are then street rallies where violent operatives hide in crowds
of otherwise peaceful protesters.
The government then responds and there is outcry from "humanitarian" organizations that the
government has dealt sternly with what are effectively terrorists using human shields. There
are generally operatives within the command structure who are sympathetic to Soros and his
allies in Western governments.
There have been mixed success with color revolutions. They fail more often than they
succeed. But they do succeed, especially where one defines success not so much as overthrowing
the existing government, but forcing it to accept radical concessions that dramatically remake
the political culture in the country. Color revolutions have resulted in what was effectively
regime change in the Republic of Georgia ( twice ), Ukraine , the Arab World , and Belarus .
George Soros is deeply embedded in color revolutions around the world through the auspices
of his Open Society Foundations NGO. The playbook should look somewhat familiar to most
Americans after the summer riots of 2019 and 2020, as well as the aftermath of the
2020 elections .
It's important to remember that George Soros is not a god. He is simply a man with a lot of
money. Thus, we should be cautious in attempting to attribute each and every action on the far
left to him, particularly in the view that he is some kind of micromanaging puppet master who
is involved in the trenches of making policy or street activism. He is not.
He is a real-world supervillain and he is able to direct the law, constitutional, and
political culture of entire nations using his money and his vision for what society ought to
look like. He is able to get away with it thanks to general ignorance of just how effective he
is and a coordinated effort by the media to smear anyone who calls him out as a dangerous
fanatic.
It is George Soros, however, who is the dangerous fanatic. He is gunning for you, your
property, your children, and ultimately your way of life.
play_arrow
7thGenMO 4 hours ago
It is a bit of a red herring to focus only on Soros when he is part of a network - our
friends of intelligence that:
- Gun down American sailors in lifeboats after firebombing their ship.
- Infiltrate the financial and, accordingly, the political systems.
- Steal military technology.
- Sell poor American kids as sex slaves.
- Etc., etc., etc.
gregga777 5 hours ago
George Soros, aka Gyorge Schwartz, was a Nazi collaborator and assisted the SS in
confiscating wealth from Hungarian ****. The Holtzman Amendment prohibits anyone who
participated in Nazi persecution from living in the United States. Why is George Soros even
allowed in the US not to mention being allowed to live here? Does that Law only apply to
Gentiles and not to ****?
Lordflin 5 hours ago
When later asked how he felt about that part of his life... he said that aiding his Nazi
stepfather to plunder his own people... made him feel powerful...
RedCharles 17 minutes ago
Compare Soro's moral position with Einstein's take on Gandhi's moral position.
Operation Paperclip brought the best of Nazi middle management and scientists to the US
and Canada. Wernher Braun for example.
Canada's Deputy PM is the descendant of a Ukrainian Nazi propagandist.
gregga777 5 hours ago (Edited)
NASA hero SS-Sturmbannführer Werner von Braun was an unindicted Nazi war criminal.
He was responsible for deaths amongst slave laborers, probably numbering in the thousands,
at the Mittelwert Dora V-2 assembly plant. But, 95-year old retired factory worker
Friedrich Karl Burger was recently deported back to Germany because in 1945 he had served a
few weeks as an 18-year old concentration camp guard. The 2010 Holtzman Amendment prohibits
anyone who participated in Nazi persecution from living in the United States.
Fluff The Cat 5 hours ago
Millions of illegals get away with violating our sovereignty, yet the state will throw
the book at the average Joe citizen for a misdemeanor. People like Soros and Gates are
untouchable for a reason. It's not just because they have so much money but rather because
they fill roles which help facilitate radical transformations to our detriment.
Gold Bug XXX 5 hours ago remove link
Thankfully, the 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft that exposes Soros' Sabbatean
Frankist origins is still online. Anyone who wants to know the real story about Soros and
the wealthy patron family behind him needs to read Rabbi Marvin Antelman's 2 book series:
Eliminate The Opiate available on Amazon. Antelman was the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Rabbinic Court of America from 1974 to 2004 and he exposes both who and what is behind
Soros and his agenda. Literally, this is THE book every American needs to read now.
This is the group behind Fabian Socialism, the group exposed by George Orwell (Eric
Blair) in his book 1984, as well as in Animal Farm. This is the philosophy of of modern
progressive Democrats in the USA and the liberal Labour party in Britain. This is the group
behind the Rhodes Trust, that created the Rhodes Scholarships, the London School of
Economics (Soros is a grad) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs who created
the CFR branch in the USA. Why do you think we have so many Rhodes Scholars and graduates
of the London School of Economics in the Obama and Biden administrations and leading the
far left?
Soros has sponsored everything evil from NAMBLA to BLM. He (and Bloomberg) funded the
anarchy and nationwide explosion in violent crime that we are seeing in every Blue City
where they installed their radical, Marxist prosecutors and DAs like Gascon in LA, Larry
Krasner in Philly, Kim Gardner in St. Louis, and Kim Foxx in Chicago - all cities where
prosecutors are emptying the jails, not prosecuting crime, and letting chaos reign supreme
so they can Federalize the Police (Soros' primary agenda) giving the federal government
more political power. This will extend the corruption we already see in our Intel Agencies,
the DOJ, all the Courts, and especially in the rogue FBI which is now a purely NKVD,
Brownshirt SA, STASI political police force focused inward on political dissidents and no
longer a legitimate law enforcement agency.
America had better wake up and wake up now, because with the purge of conservatives,
Christians and patriots from the military led by MIC Ratheon board member, the bitter
affirmative action general known as Lloyd Austin and the bat ****e crazy radical Marxist
Bishop Garrison, if we lose the police and the military - we will relive the Bolshevik
Revolution... the round ups, the torture the gulags and the death.
And then just like Solzhenitsyn warned, we'll burn in the camps wondering what would
have been if only we had resisted...
C urious it was to
read that the Russian judiciary ruled last Wednesday that Alexei Navalny's political
network is an extremist movement. Its members should be grateful that the courts recognized it
as a movement, given Navalny's nationwide support has never exceeded 3 percent or so, but on
paper they are now liable to arrest and prosecution and, if convicted of one or another charge,
could be fined or imprisoned.
There have been no arrests, so far as has been reported. But think of all those chances
Western intel agencies and their clerks in the press may now have to lionize a new cohort of
oppositionists as Navalny's heroic followers. Let us not forget, a kooky poseur journalist
named Oleg Kashin had the nerve to call Navalny "Russia's true leader" in a recent
New York Timesopinion piece.
There is no limit to the silliness in all matters Russian, it seems. At least not at the
Times .
I say "curious" because, in the ordinary conduct of statecraft as we have had it for the
past seven decades, the Moscow's court's ruling, exactly a week prior to President Joe Biden's
first summit with President Vladimir Putin, would have to be counted obtuse. Wouldn't minding
one's manners -- especially given that the Navalny network's significance resides solely in the
minds and news pages of Western propagandists -- be the wise course?
I don't think so. I have no clue as to the independence or otherwise of the Russian
judiciary, but it is unthinkable the Russian leader did not know in advance of what the courts
were about to determine. I think Russia was indeed minding its manners -- a different and
altogether more honorable set of manners than American pols and diplomats have exhibited lo
these many decades.
In a sensible read, the court ruling was a calculated gesture in response to Biden's
commitment,
announced during a Memorial Day speech, to confront Putin in Geneva on June 16 with the
question of human rights in the Russian Federation. "We will not stand by and let him abuse
those rights," saith the man from Scranton.
We will not stand by, Moscow replied in so many words, as you grandstand at Russia's
expense. Recall in this connection, Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, has lately made
it a habit to note
that Moscow is monitoring human rights in the U.S. since the Jan. 6 protests at the Capitol.
"We have no taboo topics," Lavrov said in evident response to Biden's speech. "We will discuss
whatever we think is necessary."
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, left, and President Vladimir Putin meeting with
China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi, 2017. (President of Russia)
It would be very wrong to take this matter as a passing spat as the Russian and American
presidents find their feet with one another. In my view, the court judgment last week and
Lavrov's remarks on human rights as a two-way street make the Geneva encounter far more
important than it may have otherwise turned out to be.
Five Principles
To understand this, we must go back and back and back some more until we reach the early
1950s, when newly independent India and newly socialist China were working out how two very
large neighbors ought best to conduct their relations. It was while negotiating a bilateral
agreement on this question in 1953 that Zhou Enlai, Mao's cultured, subtle, farsighted premier,
first articulated his Five Principles, the ethical code by which the People's Republic would
conduct its relations with all nations.
These were incorporated into the Sino–Indian Agreement of 1954 and have been
justifiably well-known since. Note that four of the five have to do with respectful conduct and
parity:
– Mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty;
– Mutual nonaggression;
– Noninterference in the internal affairs of other nations;
– Equality and mutual benefit among nations;
– Peaceful coexistence.
A year after New Delhi and Beijing signed their accord, Zhou's principles were reiterated at
the historically monumental conference of nonaligned nations Sukarno hosted at an Indonesian
hill station called Bandung. When the Non–Aligned Movement was formally constituted six
years after that, the Five Principles effectively became the non–West's statement -- of
aspiration, of intent -- to the West: This is what we have to offer the postcolonial world, the
NAM said in so many words. This is our contribution to a new and peaceable world order. This is
how we will manage our relations with others.
The Grand Mosque of Bandung, Indonesia, with its twin minarets, adjacent to the city square
in Asia-Afrika Street, 2008. (Prayudi Setiadharma, Wikimedia Commons)
The United States never had any time for the NAM. As readers of a certain age will recall,
it dismissed the movement, with-us-or-against-us style, as a badly dressed bunch of
crypto–Communists or Soviet dupes. The decades since are an easy lesson in why Washington
took this utterly awful position: It has not once, not in any given year, observed even one of
Zhou's principles. It has always, in any given year, abused all five.
Vladimir Putin
One may admire or detest Vladimir Putin, but he is undeniably possessed of an excellent
grasp of history, as many of his speeches attest. I doubt he thinks very specifically about the
NAM or Zhou's principles, but, without naming them, these are what he will have on the table
when he meets Joe Biden.
This is the meaning of the oddly timed court judgment against Navalny's apparatus and the
message Lavrov conveyed in response to Biden's Memorial Day speech: Internal affairs are to be
resolved internally.
Geneva will mark the start of a long and welcome process. Its importance will lie in its
formalization of a stance Russia -- and China, too -- have adopted since those two
catastrophically stupid mistakes Biden and Secretary of State Blinken made last March, when
Biden called Putin a murderer and tin-eared Blinken hollowly lectured the Chinese about human
rights and democracy.
President Joe Biden in Oval Office, April 27. (White House, Adam Schultz)
Beijing and Moscow have ever since stiffened their backs toward the U.S., giving as good as
they get on all the questions with which Washington customarily browbeats others.
If we have begun a process, where will it lead? In my read to an excellent place, where
nations mind the better set of manners noted above -- Zhou Enlai's manners, let us say.
Before this century is out, and very possibly before the midway mark, Zhou's Five Principles
stand to become the norm in international relations. Zhou's true topic was parity between West
and non–West. This will be achieved, and strange it is that the opening months of the
Biden administration have opened us to this salutary prospect. The U.S. will otherwise lead us
all into an egregiously messy period of history, and I do not think rising powers -- Russia,
China, India, others -- will find this acceptable.
One other matter must be clarified as Geneva approaches.
I do not know the merits of the case against Navalny or, since last week, the ruling against
his followers. But I have always found it curious that The New York Times and the other
major dailies recite as rote that Navalny and his people consider the two charges of
embezzlement (and the two convictions) that put him in jail in the first place to be "trumped
up" or "politically motivated." Why doesn't the Times ' Moscow bureau do the gumshoe
work and inform readers whether or not this is so?
True, Times ' Moscow correspondents are among the worst in my lifetime, but this kind
of kabuki requires one to consider carefully whether the charges are indeed legitimate.
My read: The legal case against Navalny probably holds water, and the American press uses the
power of omission to avoid acknowledging this.
Pitiful, if this is the case.
The larger point here: We must learn to put all such questions aside in contexts such as we
have now in U.S.–Russia relations. Anyone who has ever been in a Marxist reading group
knows the importance of distinguishing between primary and secondary contradictions. Let us not
forget the essential lesson, no matter anyone's political stripe.
What is the primary contradiction here? It is Washington's refusal to observe the principles
of noninterference and sovereignty, and it is vital far, far beyond bilateral relations that
Russia defends these. The Navalny case and the associated matter of human rights are, plainly
and simply, a secondary contradiction -- and one it is imperative to leave to Russians to
resolve.
Geneva in June, a rather nice place to be. Let us see if Biden and Putin mind their manners
-- and whose manners these turn out to be.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those
of Consortium News .
@fyi 30 Russia has nothing to gain from invading Ukraine. She refused to do so in 2014.
Putin was never happy about the Donbass insurrection, just could not get them crushed and
massacred because the Russion people would not have understood nor accepted that. Russia had
the opportunity to occupy if not all of Ukraine then at least Novorossija (all the east and
northeast from Charkov to Odessa oblast) three times at minimum since 2014. From a merely
military point of view they could do it anytime within a week, or faster. They had even
larger exercises than the latest transferring 300k servicemen with full equip from the far
east and central Siberia to the western part.
The political repercussions would be grave. NS2 would certainly the first victim. And for
which gain? Russia, instead of EU and (to some extent, US) had to foot the bill for that
bankrupt failed state. As to the popular uprising, even when real (or just PD), there was a
popular uprising against the Nazis in Donbass. NATO sides with Nazis, the Greens love them.
German Chancellor aspirant Annalena Baerboeck boasted before the Atlantic Council, that her
Grandpa in winter 1945 (together with his Hitler Wehrmacht and SS comrades) fought "for the
reunification of Europe" - against the evil Russkis.
The West is already fighting for and alongside with Nazis, also in those Baltic
shitholes.
Odessa is not likely to be attacked by Russia in spite of the city's past historical
associations with Russia. If everyone is expecting a Russia attack on Odessa then NATO
strategies in the Black Sea will be based on such an assumption. So Russian strategy must be
based on what everyone least expects the Russians to do.
If the Russians were so minded as to want to cut off Ukrainian access to the Black Sea,
they could do so by building up their naval forces at the Kerch Strait and near Sevastopol,
as
a show of force. If they were to target a city, not that they need to, that city would be
Mariupol on the Azov Sea.
I suspect most people in Odessa and Mikolayiv in SW Ukraine are by now so fed up with Kiev
that they would, if given an opportunity, switch their loyalties to Russia without the
Russians having to fire a shot.
Summits are good - if they are successful. But when they fail, potentially crashingly, they
can quickly lead to escalation. Biden is just as much in his fifties as his predecessor. This
generation is not capable of coming to terms with the current power situation. For them, the
usa is still the undisputed leading power. They act accordingly arrogantly. Geneva could
backfire - on all of humanity.
Sorry Aquadraht but my smartphone changed your name in my comment @ 38. I was too busy fixing
up other deliberate changes my smartphone was making to my comment to notice.
1.Putin has already won the hearts of humanity.
2.The purpose of computing accelerated algorithms have been useful tools of economics,
politics & psychopaths.
3.The favorite play of Joe is the dumb dementia card. Let's not forget the badass boss his
authentic meanness projects.
4. Narily consuming news, I have observed a financial front setup for the dollar demise in
Russia via some big fund there. Equally important is their positioning a system of trade that
excludes SWIFT. (I read it on this blog) What's the point of BIS killing Putin? Just out of
hate, spite, what? No. Hes got an elite euro pedigree. I expect a mean Joe in Switzerland
with all his marbles lined up. Putin won't quake, then what will the Pentagon play be?
Thanks b.
Expect nothing.
Biden is a cold war thug and a Russia hater. Being his age he will be running on his 20's
brain cells and memories and prejudices. He was the Obummer point man in Ukraine and Kurt
Volker with that belligerent mind set are likely music to Biden's ears. Biden just has to
reassert that the killers are back in charge after the tragi-comedy of Trump and the clown
cart. Biden has a mission to merely demonstrate the return of the magi
neo-cons.
Yes it will fail. It will be seen as pathetic at first and a week later as useless.
The USA has NEVER grasped the flower of peace and no world leader has offered that flower
so consistently as has Putin or lately Xi. And yet the USA shits on their hand of greeting.
This is a tragedy for all across this world as we witness the idiocy of squandered resources
on military might.
I do not expect the USA to clean house and sack the colony of warmongers occupying their
foreign policy advice team. I suspect the state is not in control of its destiny but rather
run by a self perpetuating mindset within the military/academia/media that glorifies itself,
ensures its succession, and then glorifies itself some more. An echo chamber of ego, fear and
loathing.
Passer by@44 I firmly believe that history books still need massive infusions of facts, but I
am not an adherent of Critical Race Theory, which substitutes moralizing for scientific
analysis, only to do a bad job with the morals (notably, the notion of collective hereditary
guilt plays a major part in much of it...and CRT is deliberately left vague so that the more
extreme positions can be reserved while more reasonable ones are defended in lieu.) And I
also believe that re-defining "democracy" as "social democracy" while ignoring how democracy
is class collaboration in pursuit of national conquest (or defense when things go badly.)
Pretending that the past democrats weren't is a way of flattering ourselves that we are so
enlightened we know better and will have true democracy as soon as we reform the bad people's
minds. It's opposing an imaginary ideal to a straw man reality in defense of illusions. The
fundamental motive I think is anti-communism, but that's my opinion I guess. The multipolar
world of 1900 wasn't unipolar because "white," that's hare-brained CRT crap in my judgment. I
don't agree with it.
But history books really need to concentrate on what happened without moralizing on
motives, which are always mixed. Children will grow up and figure that out eventually, except
for the religious ones who mentally consign others to hell.
Babylon 5 is a space war TV series, so if the argument is supposed to be that multipolar
is more peaceful, the logic escapes me. If the idea is that if "states" are equal, then it's
democratic strikes me as ideology. In the US, the idea that this or that state has rights
that ordinary people do not (variations on residual sovereignty usually,) has *never* been
essential to progress. The people having rights, majority rule, yes. But those things and
states' rights rarely even aligned. States' rights to maintain slavery or Jim Crow are the
primary examples. But I can't think of any real states' rights that work out to progress for
real people, as opposed to legal abstractions like a state. Consider the attitude of the
federal government to the states' right to decriminalize/legalize marijuana.
fyi 30
What you wrote about Ladakh and China vs. India is rubbish too (as always when you cluelessly
write about China). As MK Bhadrakumar detailed a while ago, it is not China who is the bully
in the Himalayas and Kashmir/Jammu. It is India who constantly changed the status quo by
occupations and annexions like in Sikkim, and with Nepalese territories too.This was the case
under the congress governments already to some extent, and radicalized with the Hindutva
fascists of Janata/RSS in power. It is them who build tens of military airfields and roads
around the LAC, deploying ten thousands of servicemen.
China is not interested in conflicts. It wants to guarantee the safety of the
Sichuan-Tibet-Xinjiang Highway which is crucial for the development of Western Chinese
provinces. It is the Janata regime who tries to menace and cut that connection.
China made a ton of modest and reasonable proposals, from Zhou Enlai's memorandum in 1954
on, to settle all border disputes and uncertainties in the Himalayas. And though China kicked
the Indian's butts miserably in 1961, they pulled back from Southeast Tibet, the area India
boasts as Arunachal Pradesh, British robbery prey from the Chinese empire.
The nationalist and fascist fools in Delhi have nothing real to win in the Himalayas. They
are fighting uphill, and face tremendous cost for their poor country. They continue
provocations though.
@ 46 spudski.. me either... everyone i know has one though.. oh well.. they will just have to
catch up with us!
@ 50 aquadraht... what you have to realize is fyi filters everything thru his religious
bigotry... once you figure that out - then it all becomes obvious why he concludes what he
does... it is all based on a narrow religiously intolerant position...
Very good, though I'm doubtful about the weapons worry. Isn't it the case that 1) both sides
still have significant ICBM and sub-based MRBMs? 2) Isn't it also the case that neither side
has reliable anti-ballistic missile defenses? Aren't we still very much living under a
Mutually Assured Destruction paradigm? So what if the Russians have hypersonic missiles? Are
they going to be able to saturate US missile launching systems? No.
I have a hard time believing we want war. To take on an enemy with the manpower and
productive capacity of China would be suicidal. If there is an alliance between Russia and
China and you throw in Russia's natural resources - doubly so. My take is that what we want
is an excuse to continue spending on defense - it's a business model - and Russia provides
the bogeyman.
Whatever Washington could throw at Russia, the residual Russian forces would penetrate
American defenses and wreak havoc on the American homeland.
You're being polite here.
Russia's nuclear arsenal would do much more than "wreak havoc on the American homeland":
it would reduce its entirety into a radioactive wasteland. There would be no
redneck-in-the-middle-of-Wyoming standing after such attack. The USA would become some kind
of cursed land where nothing grows for millennia.
Russian Government does not need to directly intervene then; a series of small incidents
could be caused during which the city of Odessa organizes a self-defense Unit called Rus
Protection Force and asks for help from Lugansk People's Republic.
The key consideration is to deny a legitimate beach head to the NATO forces.
In any case, I think the Russian Government is resigned to another decade or more of
confrontation with West; they already have concluded that the sanctions against the Russian
Federation will never be removed, that they would be ejected from SWIFT, and should invest
more in autarky lest they reprise the experience of Iran.
The US aircraft you were searching for is the F-15. The new version is the F-15EX which is
now in production after the Gulf states handily paid for the bulk of the R&D. Initially
it will replace the old F-15C/D single seat interceptors but in the longer term will also add
to or replace the F-15E multirole fighter/bomber. There is no overlap in functionality
between the F-15EX and the F-35.
Thank you for that rebuttal. Fyi, I sense the writer is a china russia basher lurking
behind a thin masquerade of faux shia sophistication and all intended to give shia a bad
name. Tacky.
There is a drink waiting for you at the bar of excommunicated souls ;)
In 1900 the world was more unipolar than any time in the last 3000 years. Anglo
colonialism was at a peak, Caucasians directly controlled Africa and South East Asia. white
Colonialism and genocide were everywhere. China was still crushed by European powers, Russia
was incredibly weak.
It takes a lot of word salad and spinning to say the world in 1900 was multi-polar.
Doesn't matter what you think if critical race theory...that has zero relevance here.
>>Babylon 5 is a space war TV series, so if the argument is supposed to be that
multipolar is more peaceful, the logic escapes me
Well, it was a film about different civilisations overcoming war and conflict - the whole
point about constructing the Babylon 5 space station was to avoid war and to find ways to
communicate with each other, no matter how different the various space species can be.
The multipoar space station was constructed after a disastrous Earth War against another
space civilisation, in order to fix conflicts in the Galaxy.
I really recommend you that Sci Fi series.
>>The multipolar world of 1900 wasn't unipolar because "white,"
Unless you are from another race, in which case you will see massive white dominance all
over around the world during those years.
>>Babylon 5 is a space war TV series, so if the argument is supposed to be that
multipolar is more peaceful, the logic escapes me
Well, it was a film about different civilisations overcoming war and conflict - the whole
point about constructing the Babylon 5 space station was to avoid war and to find ways to
communicate with each other, no matter how different the various space species can be.
The multipoar space station was constructed after a disastrous Earth War against another
space civilisation, in order to fix conflicts in the Galaxy.
I really recommend you that Sci Fi series.
>>The multipolar world of 1900 wasn't unipolar because "white,"
Unless you are from another race, in which case you will see massive white dominance all
over around the world during those years.
Yes, that seems like a fair assessment. In 1900 there was indeed not only rivalry between
european-american colonial powers, but also between European Colonial Powers and powerful
European countries who were at disadvantage for lack of colonies...Germany.
Here's what's goin' down. (According to my 95% WRONG predictions.) Nothing whatever of the
slightest importance will be discussed at the Putin/Biden 'summit'. No significant accords
will be established, and virtually nothing will occur. EXCEPT:
This will be a rollicking Royal Send-Up for the benefit of Joe Biden. Why? The logic is
dirt simple. Biden is always on the hairy edge of being removed from office for
incapacitation. Russia would then be dealing with the amateur and insanely aggressive Kamala
Harris. It's about sticking with the Devil You Know.
Therefor, Putin will provide the feeble Joe Biden with an all-in Royal Send-Up. Putin will
praise Biden to the heavens. He will even toss in some empty but hugely auspicious
'concession'. Which will be hailed by the indentured media as a Tremendous Victory.
All solely to keep the feeble Master of Bargain Basement Politics in 'charge'.
>>In 1900 the world was more unipolar than any time in the last 3000 years. Anglo
colonialism was at a peak, Caucasians directly controlled Africa and South East Asia. white
Colonialism and genocide were everywhere. China was still crushed by European powers, Russia
was incredibly weak.
It takes a lot of word salad and spinning to say the world in 1900 was multi-polar.
Doesn't matter what you think if critical race theory...that has zero relevance here.
In my previous comment @8 above, I concurred with b that a significant faction within the
Outlaw US Empire's elite governing aparat are delusional while other factions are very much
aware of the stark reality of the Empire's condition--particularly its domestic condition. A
shining example of this was published today by Global
Times , of which there are three total articles I hope barflies will read, although
they might have read the first two as I linked and commented about them when they were
published. Franz Gayl is a 64-year-old retired US Marine major who worked at the Pentagon as
an analyst and wrote two reality-based articles for publication by Global Times for
what are obvious reasons when read--the Outlaw US Empire has zero chance of winning a war
against China over Taiwan, and he advocated against such a stupid undertaking. But reality
just cannot be mentioned--the Narrative Must Hold at All Costs!!--as with the continuous
stream of lies about the state of the USA's economy that have been ongoing since Reagan and
his VooDoo Economics. For a self-declared Christian nation, it most certainly has
forgotten--buried very deeply--the admonition from Proverbs 16:18: Pride goeth before the
fall. And genuine patriots like Franz Gayl get crucified for trying to avert that fall. Just
like wanting to kill Assange for telling the truth--the Outlaw US Empire is facing the same
stark reality that Gorbachev and the USSR faced in the early 1980s. And guess what, Putin
just said that's exactly what the USA's facing today at the SPIEF to the heads of global
media:
" But problems keep piling up. And, at some point, they are no longer able to cope with
them. And the United States is now walking the Soviet Union's path, and its gait is confident
and steady." [My Emphasis]
At least Clueless Joe @11 sees through the bologna and gets it correct. I highly suggest
this op/ed . As Putin
told the global media heads, Russia is all about Russia and Russians, and is willing to
partner with other nations that can aid Russia in its development that's aimed at benefitting
all Russians . Defending genuine strategic interests is NOT Imperialism. the big
problem for the Outlaw US Empire is that since WW2's end it's seen the entire planet as its
strategic interest, which was the first post-war BigLie it told to itself and swallowed
whole.
NBC pushed regular neocon garbage, so it is not very interesting interview. We saw better
executed similar attempts to attack Putin in the past. The guy is really second rate: too pushy,
too opinioned to be a good interviewer. He really is not interested in Putin opinions, he need to
push the agenda of his handlers. He demonstrated zero respect as if Russia is a US vassal (it was
in 1990 under alcoholic Yeltsin) . In other words he is a regular Pressitute. This neocon pushed
the label killer on Putin, while this label is appropritate to any recent US presendent to much
greater measure. Just look at how many people were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in attempt to
achive "full spectrum Dominance" and enhance andcement global neoliberal empire. But some moments
when Putin destroyed neocon agenda are pretty educational.
Russian President Vladimir Putin this week sat down for an interview with a US media outlet
for the first time in nearly three years . NBC's Keir Simmons talked to Putin for about 90
minutes, and released a teaser segment Friday night.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the conversation centered on the Russian leader's
perspective on American politics and his personal thoughts and comparison of Donald Trump and
Joe Biden. Putin called the former president "extraordinary" and "talented" while noting that
Biden is "radically different" and is a quintessential "career man" in politics .
https://www.youtube.com/embed/oh_obIUJ7HA
"Well even now, I believe that former U.S. president Mr. Trump is an extraordinary
individual, talented individual, otherwise he would not have become U.S. President," Putin told
Simmons.
" He is a colorful individual. You may like him or not. And, but he didn't come from the
US establishment, he had not been part of big time politics before , and some like it some
don't like it but that is a fact."
"...President Biden is a career man. He has spent virtually his entire adulthood in
politics," Putin said in part.
"That's a different kind of person, and it is my great hope that yes, there are some
advantages, some disadvantages, but there will not be any impulse-based movements, on behalf
of the sitting U.S. president."
Also interesting is Putin's response to the March George Stephanopoulos interview with Biden
wherein the US President dubbed Putin a "killer" with "no soul". Putin responded in this new
NBC clip:
"Over my tenure, I've gotten used to attacks from all kinds of angles and from all kinds
of areas under all kinds of pretext, and reasons and of different caliber and fierceness and
none of it surprises me."
Putin called the "killer" label "Hollywood macho."
Putin also took aim at a recent
Washington Post report over Russia-Iranian military relations and the transfer of advanced
satellite systems. "It's just fake news," Putin dismissed. "At the very least, I don't know
anything about this kind of thing. Those who are speaking about it probably will maybe know
more about it. It's just nonsense, garbage."
activisor 2 hours ago
Funny how Putin has become leader of the free world! He and Lavrov are streets ahead
of the rest, and have massive support outside Russia based on their common sense approach
to world events. He will be hard to replace.
yerfej 2 hours ago
EVERYONE with common sense realize Putin is the ONLY current leader who gives a ****
about his country and people and is willing to cooperate with any country that isn't
wandering around the globe looking to tell everyone else what they can say or do or
think.
No_Pretzel_Logic 2 hours ago
How fascinating that you speak for "everyone" with common sense. That's quite a
skill.
Do tell us about the responses from people you've polled in the Scandinavian
countries, Poland, UK, France, etc.?
George Bush League 2 hours ago
You can start by not being such an pathetic condescending azzhole.
smellmyfingers 54 minutes ago
Putin, articulate, intelligent, answers without a teleprompter and without babbling or
stumbling.
Is he perfect? Obviously not nor is he a messiah. But I'd bet people have more
confidence in him out in front than the corruption and lies the USA and many other
western nations have that are completely compromised.
chunga 2 hours ago remove link
Dmitry Orlov has got some interesting translations from Putin at the thing in St.
Petersburg.
President Vladimir Putin said Russia doesn't want to stop using the dollar as he accused the
U.S. of exploiting the currency's dominance for sanctions and warned the policy may rebound on
Washington.
Russia has to adopt other payment methods because the U.S. "uses its national currency for
various kinds of sanctions," Putin said late Friday in St. Petersburg at a videoconference with
representatives of international media organizations. "We don't do this deliberately, we are
forced to do it."
Settlements in national currencies with other countries in areas such as defense sales and
reductions in foreign-exchange reserves held in dollars eventually will damage the U.S. as the
greenback's dominance declines, Putin said. "Why do U.S. political authorities do this? They're
sawing the branch on which they sit," he said.
Putin spoke a day after Russia announced it will eliminate the dollar from its oil fund to
reduce vulnerability to sanctions, a largely symbolic move as the switch in holdings will take
place within the central bank's reserves. Russia has tried with limited success to shift away
from the dollar for years amid international sanctions over Putin's 2014 annexation of Crimea
and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine, as well as for alleged cyber attacks, election
meddling and espionage operations.
The Russian leader's comments came ahead of his first summit meeting with U.S. President Joe
Biden in Geneva on June 16. While he praised Biden as one of the world's most experienced
leaders, Putin said he expects no breakthrough in relations with the U.S. at the talks.
And he offered a warning at Friday's meeting for the U.S., based on what he said was his own
experiences "as a former citizen of the former Soviet Union."
"The problem with empires is that they think they can afford small errors and mistakes,"
which gradually accumulate, Putin said. "There comes a time when they can no longer be dealt
with. And the U.S., with a confident step, a confident gait, a firm step, is walking straight
along the path of the Soviet Union."
Sanctions are the "gentlemanly" neo-imperial language of gunboat diplomacy, never better
expressed than the attempts of the British government in the early 1950s to discipline a newly
democratic Iran. First the British Labour Government, then a Conservative government under a
splenetic Churchill, tried to put a halt to the runaway popularity of Mohammed Mossadegh, prime
minister of Iran, and his policy to shut down the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and nationalize
Iran's own oil. The British sabotaged their own company, refused to distribute the oil, and did
everything else they could to impoverish Iran. This was only after the AIOC had refused to
budge from its insistence on taking practically all of the profits and to refrain from treating
Iranian oil workers as subhuman. Ironically, the British needed AIOC money to finance their own
program of industrial nationalization and the welfare state. As is so often the case, the
"sanctions" merely hardened anti-imperial sentiment, and were succeeded by a joint US-UK
directed regime-change coup d'etat
None of this need suggest a diminution in the importance of national sovereignty. Sovereign
nations should be free to trade with whomsoever they choose, to protect which domestic
industries they consider worthy of protection. That is their right. They also have the right to
enter into trade agreements with others for the purpose of regulating the conditions of trade
between them, provided that they enter into such agreements without duress, bribery or
punishment.
Questions of Definition
The Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) explains that sanctions have become one of the most
favored tools for governments to respond to foreign policy challenges. The term sanctions
can refer to travel bans, asset freezes, arms embargoes, capital restraints, foreign aid
reductions, and trade restrictions, and represent efforts to coerce, deter, punish, or shame
entities that are considered by those who wield them to endanger their interests. They are
generally viewed as a lower-cost, lower-risk course of action in calculations that balance
diplomacy against war. Yet sanctions can be just as devasting in terms of loss of human life.
They may be particularly attractive in the case of policy responses to foreign crises in which
national interest is considered less than vital, or where military action is not feasible.
Sanctions that blanket entire populations generally do most damage to poorer and more
vulnerable social strata, who lack the means to avoid or compensate for their consequences. The
USA has more than two dozen sanctions regimes. Some target specific countries such as Cuba and
Iran, others target specific categories of person or institution or even specific named
individuals. Sanctions have been used in efforts of counterterrorism, counter-narcotics,
nonproliferation, democracy and human rights promotion, conflict resolution, and cybersecurity.
They are frequently applied as a form of punishment or reprisal for behavior in which it is
alleged that the target has engaged and of which the applying entity disapproves.
In the case of the UN Security Council sanctions resolutions must pass the fifteen-member
council by a majority vote and without a veto from any of the five permanent members: the
United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. The most common types of UN
sanctions, binding for all member states, are asset freezes, travel bans, and arms embargoes.
The UN relies on member states for enforcement, with all the idiosyncrasies and abuses that
this entails. The council-imposed sanctions against Southern Rhodesia in 1966 were intended to
undermine Ian Smith's white supremacist regime and were followed in 1977 by another set of
comprehensive UN sanctions against apartheid South Africa. They have been applied more than
twenty times since 1990 against targeting parties to an intrastate conflict, as in Somalia,
Liberia, and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
The European Union imposes sanctions as part of its Common Foreign and Security Policy. They
must receive unanimous consent from member states in the Council of the European Union, the
body that represents EU leaders. The EU has levied its sanctions more than thirty times.
Individual EU states may also impose harsher sanctions independently within their national
jurisdiction.
The USA resorts to economic and financial sanctions more than any other country. Presidents
may issue an executive order that declares a national emergency and invokes special powers to
regulate commerce for a period of one year, unless extended by the president or terminated by a
joint resolution of Congress. Most of the more than fifty states of emergency declared by
Congress remain in effect today. Congress may pass legislation imposing new sanctions or
modifying existing ones.
In 2019, the United States had comprehensive sanctions regimes on Cuba, North Korea, Iran,
Sudan, and Syria, as well as more than a dozen other programs targeting individuals and
entities (currently some 6,000). Existing U.S. sanctions programs are administered by the
Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), while other departments,
including State, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Justice, may also play an integral role. The
secretary of state can designate a group a foreign terrorist organization or label a country a
state sponsor of terrorism, both of which have sanctions implications. State and local
authorities may also contribute to enforcement efforts.
The practice of sanctions received a significant boost with the formation of the World Trade
Organization, which recognizes the legitimacy of sanctions as a response to the failure of
parties in a trade dispute to reach agreement on satisfactory compensation. A complainant may
ask the Dispute
Settlement Body for permission to impose trade sanctions against the respondent that has
failed to implement. The complainant's retaliatory response may not go beyond the level of the
harm caused by the respondent. The complainant should first seek to suspend obligations in the
same sector as that in which the violation or other nullification or impairment was found,
unless the complainant considers it impracticable or ineffective to remain within the same
sector The complainant is allowed countermeasures that are in effect and would in other
circumstances be inconsistent with the WTO Agreement. In other words, the result is that a
complainant responds to one trade barrier with another trade barrier, contrary to the
liberalization philosophy underlying the WTO. Such measures are nearly always harmful for both
the complainant and the target. Although such retaliation requires prior approval by the DSB 1,
the countermeasures are applied selectively by one Member against another. The suspension of
obligations is temporary and the DSB is obligated to maintain a review of the situation for as
long as there is no implementation. The suspension must be revoked once the Member concerned
has fully complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.
In a 2019 decision
the WTO allowed China to impose trade sanctions on $3.6 billion of American goods on the
grounds that the USA had not followed WTO rules in the way it imposed duties on what it
regarded as unfairly cheap Chinese goods. The ruling concluded a case that China brought
against the USA in 2013 that stemmed from levies placed on more than 40 Chinese goods. At issue
were subsidies that the USA accused China of providing to its companies so that they can sell
goods more cheaply overseas.
The case touched on some of the deep politics of neoliberalism for which the WTO is supreme
icon, and which make the very notion of sanctions problematic as evidenced in frequent
criticisms of the WTO . These are that free trade benefits developed countries more than
developing countries; that countries should trade without discrimination means a local firm is
not allowed to favor local contractors, giving an unfair advantage to multinational companies
and imposing costs for local firms; ; it is important that nations be allowed to assist in the
diversification of their economies and not be penalized for favoring emerging industries; free
trade is not equally sought across different industries "" notably, both the US and EU retain
high tariffs on agriculture, which hurts farmers in developing economies; principles of free
trade often ignore environmental considerations, considerations of labor equity and cultural
diversity.
After 9/11 "" still one of the least understood events in modern history "" and amidst the
subsequent US invasions of the sovereign countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, and
de-stabilization of many others (including Libya, Syria, Ukraine), the USA set about disrupting
what it deemed the financial infrastructure supporting terrorists and international criminals,
(but not including the USA itself). The Patriot Act awarded Treasury Department officials
far-reaching authority to freeze the assets and financial transactions of individuals and other
entities suspected of supporting terrorism, and broad powers to designate foreign jurisdictions
and financial institutions as "primary money laundering concerns." Treasury needs only a
reasonable suspicion""not necessarily any evidence""to target entities under these laws. The
centrality of New York and the dollar to the global financial system means these U.S. policies
are felt globally. Penalties for sanctions violations can be huge in terms of fines, loss of
business, and reputational damage. Sanctions regimes today increasingly impact not merely the
primary targeted countries or entities but also those who would do business with such countries
or entities.
Questions of Effectiveness
Sanctions have a poor track record, registering a modest 20-30 percent success rate at best,
according to one source, Emily Cashen, writing for World Finance in 2017. According to leading
empirical analyses, between 1915 and 2006, comprehensive sanctions were successful, at best,
just 30 percent of the time. The longer sanctions are in place, the less likely they are to be
effective, as the targeted state tends to adapt to its new economic circumstances instead of
changing its behavior.
Examples of "successful" applications of sanctions (always judged from the very partial
viewpoint of those who impose them) are said to include their role in persuading the Iranian
leadership to comply with limits to its uranium enrichment program. But if this was "success,"
why then did the USA break its agreement with Iran in 2018? And why was there an agreement in
the first place if Iran had never had nuclear weapons nor was likely to produce them on its own
account without serious provocation. Sanctions are also said to have pressured Gadaffi in
handing over the Lockerbie suspects for trial, renouncing the nation's weapons of mass
destruction and ending its support for terrorist activities. But then, if that was "success,"
why did NATO bomb Libya back to the stone age in 2011?
Sanctions that are effective in one setting may fail in another . Context is everything.
Sanctions programs with relatively limited objectives are generally more likely to succeed than
those with major political ambitions. Furthermore, sanctions may achieve their desired economic
effect but fail to change behavior. Only correlations, not causal relationships, can be
determined. The central question is one of comparative utility: Is the imposition of sanctions
better or worse than not imposing sanctions, from whose viewpoint, and why? Best practices are
said to combine punitive measures with positive inducements; set attainable goals; build
multilateral support; be credible and flexible: and give the target reason to believe that
sanctions will be increased or reduced based on its behavior.
In cases where the targeted country has other trading options unilateral measures have no
real impact or may be counterproductive. Sanctions against Russia over Ukraine may have simply
helped to push Russia closer to its eastern neighbors, notably China.
To bypass sanctions Russia has shifted its trade focus towards Asia. Asian non-cooperation with
the sanctions helps explain why Russia was expecting to grow its trade with China to $200bn by
2020. For several countries in western Europe, the sanctions had a double-edged sword.
Russia is the European Union's third largest commercial partner, and the EU, reciprocally, is
Russia's chief trade partner, accounting for almost 41 percent of the nation's trade prior to
the sanctions. In 2012, before the Ukrainian crisis began, the EU exported a record
€267.5bn ($285bn) of goods to Russia. Further, US sanctions against Russia
increasingly and patently had nothing to do with Ukraine and everything to do with US interest
in exploiting its imperial relationship with West European vassal states to grow its LNG
(liquefied natural gas) market in competition with Russia, and by doing everything possible to
obstruct "" and to coerce European nations into helping it obstruct "" Russia's Nord Stream 2
oil and gas pipeline that will bring cheap Russian oil to Europe without passing through
Ukraine. The very opposite of principles of globalization and free trade.
The USA can afford to be aggressive in sanctions policies largely because (for the time
being, and that time is getting shorter by the day) there is no alternative to the dollar and
because there is no single country export market quite as attractive (for now and even then,
one must wonder about China) as the USA. Sanctions that are effective in one setting may fail
in another. Context is everything. Sanctions programs with relatively limited objectives are
generally more likely to succeed than those with major political ambitions. Furthermore,
sanctions may achieve their desired economic effect but fail to change behavior. Only
correlations, not causal relationships, can be determined. The central question is one of
comparative utility: Is the imposition of sanctions better or worse than not imposing
sanctions, from whose viewpoint, and why? Best practices are said to combine punitive measures
with positive inducements; set attainable goals; build multilateral support; be credible and
flexible: and give the target reason to believe that sanctions will be increased or reduced
based on its behavior.
Sanctions and Human Misery
Since the early 1990s, the US, Europe and other developed economies have employed sanctions on
other nations more than 500 times , seeking to assert their influence on the global stage
without resorting to military interventions. Yet military interventions tend to happen in any
case suggesting that in some cases the sanctions are intended to "soften up" the target prior
to armed conflict).
The economic stranglehold of stringent sanctions on Iraq after the successful allied
invasion of 1991 caused widescale malnutrition and prolonged suffering, and a lack of medical
supplies and a shortage of clean water led to one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern
history. Sanctions all but completely cut off the oil trade. Iraq lost up to $130 billion in
oil revenues during the 1990s, causing intense poverty to many Iraqi civilians. Prior to the
embargo, Iraq had relied on imports for two thirds of its food supply. With this source
suddenly cut off, the price of basic commodities rose 1,000 percent between 1990 and 1995.
Infant mortality increased 150 percent, according to a report by Save the
Children, with researchers estimating that between 670,000 and 880,000 children under five
died because of the impoverished conditions caused by the sanctions. Then US Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright notoriously excused this horrendous slaughter as "worth the
price ." During the Gulf War, almost all of Iraq's essential infrastructure was bombed by a
US-led coalition, leaving the country without water treatment plants or sewage treatment
facilities, prompting extended outbreaks of cholera and typhoid.
Targeted sanctions can be equally devastating. The de facto
boycott on Congolese minerals, for example, has led to the loss of more than 750,000 jobs in
the nation's mining sector. The loss of income resulting from this mass redundancy has had
a severe impact on child health in the nation, with conservative estimates recording a 143
percent increase in infant mortality. Despite an international shift away from comprehensive
sanctions, this Congolese suffering indicates targeted measures are still not free from ethical
quandaries.
Application of sanctions became more popular at the end of the first cold war because
previously targeted nations could negotiate for relief with the oppositional superpower. In the
succeeding era of greater enthusiasm for sanctions it became clear that they could have dire
consequences for civilian populations, and this helps account for increased popularity of
targeted sanctions.
Sanctions of Spite: Syria and the Caesar Act
There are many current examples of the murderous horror of the impact of sanctions by
"civilized," usually western powers, especially when their targets are poorer countries such as
Venezuela and Syria. Not untypically, some of the behaviors that the imperialists seek to
change are themselves the consequence of past imperial aggression.
The secular regime of Bashar Assad in Syria has faced a ten-year existential threat from the
Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda affiliates, ISIS and other jihadist entities supported by an array
of global and regional actors including the USA, UK, and other NATO members, Israel, Jordan,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE. Whatever the regime's defects they are at the very
least comparable and in some cases dwarfed by those of many of Syria's opponents in the Arab
world.
The significance of genuine popular support for Assad , demonstrated in numerous polls, has
been marginalized by western mainstream media. The regime's survival, with air support from
Russia and ground support from Hezbollah and Iran, is extraordinary by any measure. Yet the USA
has continued to interfere in the affairs of Syria with a view to its continuing impoverishment
and destabilization by allowing Turkey to occupy large areas of the north west and populate
these with jihadist emigrees; funding Kurdish forces to secure Syria's oil resources on behalf
of the USA, and for maintaining prisons and camps for ISIS supporters, by maintaining its own
military bases; and permitting a constant succession of Israeli bombing attacks on what Israel
claims are Iranian-backed militia or Syrian Arab Army militia working in collaboration with
Iran; and approving further Israeli incursions into the Golan Heights.
Defeat of ISIS and recovery of non-Kurdish areas outside of Idlib by the Syrian Arab Army
(SAA) took place in conditions of considerable economic challenge, exacerbated by US-imposed
sanctions against both Syria and its neighbor Lebanon. This had a corrosive impact on relations
among top regime figures. Bashar al-Assad's billionaire first cousin and richest man in Syria,
Rami Makhlouf, complained in early 2020 of regime harassment and arrests of employees. Until
then, the Makhlouf family enjoyed exclusive access to business opportunities and monopolies on
hotels, tobacco, and communications, partly
camouflaged by a philanthropic empire that assisted many Syrians through the conflict .
Some $30 billion of the country's wealth, representing 20% of all deposits in Lebanese banks,
was trapped by Beirut's financial implosion, exacerbated by the unprecedented explosion ""
possibly accidental, possibly sabotage "" in the city's harbor area on August 4. Syrian
businessmen needed Beirut's banks to conduct business abroad, and to evade sanctions. A regime
crackdown on money transfer companies made matters worse by creating
a dollar shortage , depriving thousands of families who were dependent on foreign
remittances. Before the explosion, purchasing power of the Syrian pound was already worth 27
times less than before the start of the conflict.
Deteriorating economic conditions ravaged Syria's surviving pretensions to socialist
principle. In the first decade of Bashar's rule, there had been big gains in healthcare in
terms of available beds, hospitals, and nursing staff. But by now there were 50% fewer doctors,
30% fewer hospitals. Before the conflict, 90% of pharmaceutical needs were filled by Syrian
factories. By 2018 those factories which remained had trouble getting raw materials and
replacement parts for equipment because of sanctions. Before the conflict there was improved
land irrigation and food security. In 2011, abject poverty stood at less than one percent,
rising to 35 percent by 2015. The percentage of those facing food insecurity had fallen from
2.2% in 1999 to 1.1% in 2010. Now, 33% lacked food security. One third of homes were
damaged or destroyed, 380,000 killed and 11 million displaced since 2011.
Economic conditions were worsened by ever tightening economic sanctions and US enforcement
of the so-called Caesar Act from June 2020 (named after a faked human rights scandal in 2015).
The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act sanctioned the Syrian government, including President
Bashar al-Assad, for alleged war crimes. The purposes were to cripple Syria for the purposes of
regime change, while luring Russia further into the Syrian quagmire. The Act targeted 39
individuals and entities, including the president's wife, Asma. Anyone doing business with the
regime, no matter where, was potentially vulnerable to travel restrictions and financial
sanctions. The Caesar Act smeared the Syria Central Bank as a "˜money laundering'
institution and sought to render it impossible for Syrian companies to export and import from
Lebanon. It made it difficult or impossible for Syrians abroad to transfer money to family
members. The Act contributed to devaluation of the Syrian pound which tumbled from 650 Syrian
pounds to one US dollar in October 2019 to 2600 to the US dollar in summer 2020.
The Caesar Act (alongside legal initiatives in Europe designed to charge senior
administration officials with war crimes) were designed to stymie reconstruction, hit the
construction, electricity, and oil sectors, and cripple the Lebanese private companies that
would otherwise lead reconstruction efforts. Sanctions prevented non-U.S. aid organizations
from assisting reconstruction. An opposition leader predicted it would result in "
even greater levels of destitution, famine, and worsening criminality and predatory
behavior " and would precipitate regime change, migratory flight, excess deaths, and youth
deprivation. In a climate of regulatory confusion, sanctions often encourage over-compliance.
Prospects of reconstruction investment funds from Russian companies were
negatively impacted . Blumenthal ascribed responsibility for the Caesar sanctions
initiative to a "years-long lobbying campaign carried out by a network of regime-change
operatives working under cover of shadowy international NGOs and Syrian-American diaspora
groups." The country had already suffered severe US and EU economic sanctions. A 2016 UNESCO
report found that sanctions had brought an end to humanitarian aid because sanctions
regulations, licenses, and penalties made it so difficult and risky (Sterling 2020). In 2018,
United Nations Special Rapporteur, Idriss Jazairy, observed that sanctions impacted negatively
on
After 500,000 civilians returned to Aleppo following its liberation in 2016, US sanctions
and UN rules prohibited reconstruction. Returnees were allowed "shelter kits" with plastic but
rebuilding with glass and cement walls was not allowed because "˜reconstruction' was
prohibited.
In brazen acknowledgment of US support for the HTS terrorists of Idlib, the Caesar Act
exempted Idlib province, as well as the northeast areas controlled by US troops and the SDF. It
designated $50 million for "˜humanitarian aid' to these areas. Other US allies pumped in
hundreds of millions of dollars more in aid, further exacerbating pressure on the Syrian pound
and substantially increasing prices for all commodities in regime-controlled areas.
"best-designed sanctions can be self-defeating, strengthening the regimes they were designed
to hurt and punishing the societies they were supposed to protect."
They recalled the destruction of Iraq's middle class in the 1990s, when US sanctions killed
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis:
"Their effect was gendered, disproportionately punishing women and children. The notion that
sanctions work is a pitiless illusion." .
Several European nations (Italy, Poland, Austria, Greece, Hungary) indicating unease with
the continuing stagnation of US and EU sanctions policy, restored tacit contacts with Damascus.
While the EU was an important source of humanitarian aid for internally displaced people in
Syria and for displaced Syrians abroad, it continued to refrain from dealing directly with
Damascus
or from support for reconstruction efforts, on the grounds of continuing instability.
Conclusion
Under indubitably wise international leadership, acting within a framework of equitable
political power among nation states whose sovereignty is sacrosanct, then perhaps sanctions
policies might sometimes be strategically appropriate. These conditions clearly do not apply.
The increasing weaponization of sanctions is a powerful contribution to a crumbling world
order, one that invokes the grave danger of over-reaction by an aggrieved victim, in a context
of intense economic and military competition between rival nuclear powers.
Oliver Boyd-Barrett is Professor Emeritus at Bowling Green State University, Ohio, and at
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He is an expert on international media, news,
and propaganda. His writings can be accessed by subscription at Substack at https://oliverboydbarrett.substack.com.
A comprehensive roundup of the sanctions-based aggression being imposed on the world by
the bankster dominated west. I really don't think the majority of citizens have a clue what
is being done by their rulers, nor any idea of the sheer hatred being fostered by those
actions. The time for waking up is well overdue, the west has been sucked dry by those same
policies (especially the US) and the fall is imminent.
"The increasing weaponization of sanctions is a powerful contribution to a crumbling world
order, one that invokes the grave danger of over-reaction by an aggrieved victim, in a
context of intense economic and military competition between rival nuclear powers."
Fact: "War is the health of the state" [Randolph Bourne]- meaning, the "business" of
governments is always war- war on its citizens, war on other nations, it never ends.
Invade the world, invite the world. Economic cold war vs. 1/3 of the world's landmass and
population. Seemingly purposeful hollowing out of it's middle class, the abolition of
educational/societal standards to placate the demands of wokeness and the replacement of it's
historical population with an eclectic mix of third world strivers, corrupt east asians and
south american day laborers. Oh, and an increasingly debt centric economy.
The USA is obviously a very prudent country which focuses on it's own long term survival
first and foremost. I expect it to do quite well in the coming years.
My good friend in Canada says that it seems to be a "BioSecurity Fascist State" forming
also. And it's not against Cuba , it's against the populace of Canada. Worse than anything in
the US.
Sanctions strike hard at the very essence of positive international relationship ""
trade.
U.S. economic sanctions are insulting, provocative, corrosive and largely ineffective.
However, trade is hardly the essence of positive international relationship.
Britain traded massively with Germany right up until Britain attacked Germany in 1914.
Germany traded even more massively with the Soviet Union right up until Germany attacked the
Soviet Union in 1941. Were it not for Japanese trade with China, the Mukden Incident that, in
1931, opened the conflict that developed into World War II in Asia""well, it probably would
not have occurred. In short, the trade premise that underlies your article needs to be
revisited.
Sanctions is war. US wars are always cloaked behind our alleged love for democracy and
freedom, but alleged friends beginning with Saudi Arabia and impacting every country South of
our border, prove we are liars, interested only in preserving the best interests of our
wealthiest citizens.
The purpose of US foreign policy is to enhance the profits of global US Corporations
regardless what the consequences are to local targeted populations. The US has extraordinary
power over the EU, but the Russian pipeline is evidence that EU support is cracking.
Shame on the USA for failing to respect the national sovereignty of other nations big and
small. Our constitutional form of government is not a model example of the fruits of
democracy and freedom, as both are crippled by original design, for profit prisons and
schools, toll roads, and the moral hazards imposed by misguided religious fanatics who impose
their will on a disinterested public.
Winston Churchill was a great one for blockades. Churchill, the MoFker is responsible for
5 million deaths. During the 2nd World War he shipped grain from India to Britain and left
the Indians to starve. Five million Bengalis and east Indians died of starvation. Let's hope
when the tide turns all this is forgotten and forgiven.
The war against Japan was instigated by blocades.
The war against Iran is the next.
Syria policy has nothing to do with oil or Assad being a dictator. It is a continuation of
Israel's policies. The whole purpose of these wars is to establish an independent Kurdish
state so that the pressure on Israel could be reduced and states in the region could be
destabilized. While the US was busy trying to fight Israel's wars in ME, China has become a
strategic threat with no signs of slowing down the process of overtaking the US as the
dominant superpower of the world. Despite all the damage these policies have caused, even the
so-called conservatives in the US keep repeating nonsensical ideas like "Kurds deserve a
state." Not realizing that there is no such thing as "deserving a state" or that this just a
zionist project that offers nothing to the US.
Regarding China, sanctions should be used more not less, unless the US wants to be the
secondary power. However, they are not needed with other countries. In ME, the US should wash
its hands off Israel and let the most moral army of the world protect their own country. That
country is a huge liability and problem for the US, it offered the US nothing other than
selling American military secrets and earning 1.5 billion Muslims' disdain. To counter Russia
and Iran, the US should double down on cooperating with Turkey, increase investments and
military support so that Turks can be more active in Central Asia and Afghanistan as well.
This is the smartest and the most efficient way for the US to achieve its goals in Asia and
ME. Which would be slowing China's growth, Russia's creeping in the South, and Iranian
activity in Arab ME.
However, the US basically does the opposite of everything it should. Turning
neutral/unfriendly with Turkey is one of the dumbest things the US foreign service could do,
considering the fact that Turks are the historical enemies of all three of China, Russia, and
Iran, and they did exactly that? Why? For Israel whose feelings were hurt by Erdogan of
course. Currently, the US government is a hostage to vocal minorities and interest groups.
Therefore, its relative decline will not stop unless actual Americans with no double
allegiances step up and take back their government.
Canada is a pathetic American colony, selling their resources cheap in return for being
allowed to have a few crappy hockey teams and access to degenerate American entertainment.
The Brits tell them to murder white Germans, they do it. The Americans tell them to murder
Afghans, they do it...
The US government is a menace to all, including the US population. All US presidents are
war criminals, and sanctions are only one aspect of their endless criminality.
Sanctions are the modern day adaptation of siege warfare. It's essentially a
"˜starve them out' approach to foreign policy. Theoretically, one presumes, the goal is
to cause enough instability to harm the targeted regime. But I can't think of a single time
they have succeeded at anything but causing mass suffering to those at the bottom of the
power pyramid.
In the case of sanctions on Iraq and the subsequent corrupt Oil-For-Food Program, the
sanctions became a vehicle to transfer billions of dollars to oligarchs and their pet
politicians" as usual.
The latest Novichok victims were exposed to the deadly agent as a result of a leak from a
nearby UK laboratory, authorities have confirmed.
Charlie Rowley, 45, and Dawn Sturgess, 44, fell ill at a house in Amesbury on Saturday,
after being exposed to Novichok "" the same nerve agent that poisoned ex-Russian spy Sergei
Skirpal.
Rt.com reports: Two people,
this time a British couple in their 40s with no link to Russian intelligence, were affected by
a chemical substance on Saturday. Four days later, the UK's counter-terrorism chief said the
chemical that hit them was the same that sent former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and
his daughter, Yulia, into a coma in early March.
Back then, it took mere hours for the UK government to pin the blame on Moscow and unleash a
massive diplomatic offensive together with its allies. Moscow, still waiting for compelling
evidence to be produced, has been shut out of the investigation, and it has raised a number of
questions about the poisoning "" none of which have been answered.
Linking the two poisonings "is clearly a line of enquiry" for UK investigators, but the new
incident doesn't look likely to answer any of those concerns either.
The new victims, 45-year-old Charlie Rowley and his 44-year-old girlfriend Dawn Sturgess
were discovered in Amesbury, some 12 km (7 miles) north of Salisbury. Both scenes, though, are
located around Porton Down, which houses a secretive government chemical lab.
Porton Down has been a crucial part of the Skripal case investigation. It was there that the
chemical agent was identified as Novichok in both cases. Back in March, UK officials cited this
as proof that the substance came from Russia "" only to later be contradicted by the lab's
chief executive, who said they weren't really able to verify the agent's origins.
As for the location of the new scene relative to the old one, 12 km doesn't seem like an
improbably large distance. Plus, a friend of the victims said the couple had been to Salisbury
before they fell ill. The UK Home Secretary's working theory is that the exposure was
accidental, which begs the question: how would that be possible after four months and a massive
clean-up operation? Also, why were there only two random people in the whole 12km radius that
were affected?
Curious timing
Investigators say it's unclear if the supposed Novichok came from the same batch that
poisoned the Skripals in March. But, according to experts, the nerve agents of the Novichok
family lose their potency very quickly, which makes it unlikely that a trace powerful enough
had survived for four months to strike again at this particular moment.
And the moment is significant for two reasons "" two events key to Russia's international
image. One is the hugely successful FIFA World Cup, where the English team just secured a
quarter-final spot. British fans seem to be enjoying themselves in Russia, and berating British
politicians and media for their efforts to scare them away from the event.
The other is the preparations for a summit between US President Donald Trump and Russia's
Vladimir Putin. A date and a place for the meeting "" Helsinki, Finland, July 16 "" were set
just last week, and a possible rapprochement between the two rival superpowers seems to be
keeping British officials up at night.
Nobody died, again
One of the key questions asked back in March was: why did the Skripals survive if they were
indeed exposed to a military-grade nerve agent? While UK officials peddle Novichok as a deadly
nerve agent manufactured by the Soviets, claiming its recent use was the first chemical attack
in Europe since World War Two, it appears to have a surprisingly low lethality rate.
A friend of the couple described Rowley becoming increasingly ill over the course of the
day, before finally being taken to the hospital. There, the supposedly deadly Novichok gave
doctors enough time to treat the couple for a completely different diagnosis: the medics
initially believed that the couple had taken contaminated drugs (Rowley is a registered heroin
addict). Samples from the two were only sent to Porton Down on Monday, two days after they were
admitted.
Back in March, the Skripals were similarly discovered slipping in and out of consciousness
on a park bench. They were also treated for an opioid overdose at first, before the diagnosis
switched to nerve agent poisoning. Both ultimately survived and have now been discharged from
the hospital.
Analysts have repeatedly questioned the apparent low lethality of the supposed
"military-grade nerve agent." Russian officials, as well, have said that if such a deadly
substance had indeed been used, survival would be impossible.
British officials are still investigating the incident. However, this time "" now that
Novichok has been brought up "" they seem less inclined to point fingers, even as England fans
frolic in Russia and Theresa May's handling of Brexit continues to divide the public.
There are a lot of things that can be done to mitigate problems due to declining oil
production. When it comes to SA, they can start using natural gas from Ghawar or Qatar to
replace fuel oil for power generation during especially summer.
Okay, first point: Qatar has plenty of natural gas. The problem is they are in a feud with
Saudi and they do not trade with each other:
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt severed diplomatic ties with
Qatar in mid-2017 after accusing the country of supporting terrorism. Qatar has repeatedly
denied the accusations. The boycotting countries, known as the Arab quartet, also cited
political differences with Qatar over Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Second point: Saudi does not have nearly enough natural gas to power their own power plants
and desalination plants:
New York CNN Business --
Saudi Arabia has placed a huge bet on American natural gas.
In a sign of shifting energy fortunes, Saudi Aramco announced a mega preliminary
agreement on Wednesday to buy 5 million tons of liquefied natural gas per year from a Port
Arthur, Texas export project that's under development.
If completed, the purchase from San Diego-based Sempra Energy (SRE) would be one of the
largest LNG deals ever signed, according to consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.
But this may change. Saudi is desperate for natural gas and this has led them to try to make
amends with Qatar:
(CNN)Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies agreed on Tuesday to restore diplomatic relations
with Qatar and restart flights to and from the country, ending a three-year boycott of the tiny
gas-rich nation.
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt severed diplomatic ties with
Qatar in mid-2017 after accusing the country of supporting terrorism. Qatar has repeatedly
denied the accusations.
The boycotting countries, known as the Arab quartet, also cited political differences
with Qatar over Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. Doha, unlike its Gulf neighbors, has friendly
relations with Tehran, supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and has hosted groups
affiliated with the Islamist group.
Qatar's only land border -- which it shares with Saudi Arabia -- was sealed shut.
Boycotting countries closed their airspace to Qatar, and nearby Bahrain and the UAE closed
their maritime borders to ships carrying the Qatari flag.
REPLYRATIONALLUDDITE IGNORED
06/08/2021 at 8:29 pm
Fantastic Ron. Too many people practising truth by assertion and liar's bluff / wishful
thinking. They won't change, but you persuade others whom are genuinely seeking the truth and
can distinguish between evidence supported logic and security blanket speculation.
SA is going to end badly, as too will fever dreams that don't realise that their electric
transition is a mirage – largely it's all fossil fuels in disguise and totally parasitic
on upon the peak energy infrastructure of previous and current fossil fuel excess calories.
We may have an Electric Middle Ages (Ugo Bardi), but unless a new energy source AT LEAST as
energy dense and net positive as FF is discovered like yesterday then this lovely wealth Blip
we all enjoyed is going away.
Michael Hudson appeared
again on Moderate Rebels in an examination of Biden's policy direction, some of
which are clearly a continuity from Trump and others Neoliberal Obaman. This observation and
the following discussion reveals the modus behind what was initially Trumpian:
"So if you look at the sanctions against Russia and China as a way to split Europe and
make Europe increasingly dependent on the United States, not only for gas, and energy, but
also for vaccines."
Hudson calls it "the intellectual property monopoly" which was a major point in the
rationale he produced for his Trade War with China. But as we've seen, the global reaction
isn't as it was during the previous era from 1970-2000:
"So what we're seeing is an intensification of economic warfare against almost all the
other countries in the world, hoping that somehow this will divide and conquer them,
instead of driving them all together ." [My Emphasis]
And what we're seeing is the latter occurring as the Outlaw US Empire's Soft Power rapidly
erodes. As with their initial program, the discussion is long and involved.
And since I've been absent, I should suggest reading Escobar's latest bit of
historical review , which I found quite profound and an interesting gap filler in the
historical narrative of Western Colonialism.
Who caused the flight to be diverted is still uncertain to me. It's clear that Roman was
the target though. And that relations between the West and Russia are suffering.
With that said, I think it's worthwhile to note that this new low in relations is
something that is not in Russia's interest as NordStream2 is still under attack.
Some say that Nordstream 2 is unstoppable. Well, the completion of the pipeline is near
but whether Germany buys gas from Russia and/or how much gas is still a question. The Empire
opposition to NS2 has been relentless but they may accept a pipeline that guarantees German
energy security yet demand that it restrict purchases of Russian gas to only what is
absolutely necessary.
Barring a mistranslation, Putin said that continued gas transit through Ukraine depends on
Ukraine's behaviour. Based on a quick impression, that contracts pretty much every previous
Russian / Gazprom statement that Garprom intends to retain same flows through Ukraine. No one
expects Russia to keep flows in the event of hostilities, but to give opponents of the
pipeline a soundbyte to say "see, we told you they would do that" is a shocking blunder.
Actually, he kept repeating that the current transit contract will be maintained, but that
if Ukraine wants to increase the volume of gas that goes through their territory, and
subsequently earn more money from transit contracts, they have to make that option more
lucrative for customers and suppliers. Primarily, by breaking up the gas monopoly on that
territory -- harking back to the consortium suggestion by Shroeder in 2008-2009(?).
That said, he was fairly blunt about the advantages of supplying gas directly to Germany
and the lack of any strictly economical reason to use Ukrainian gas transit, and that's a
fairly obvious aspect of this entire project -- provided that the capacity of these auxiliary
pipelines isn't exceeded, there's no good economic reason to use the Ukrainian
infrastructure.
When asked about Ukrainian financial woes, in the comical context of Zelensky complaining
that the gas transit income is essential for financing the Ukrainian army, he replied
sardonically that it's not the responsibility of the Russian state to keep the Ukrainian
state fed. There's a sort of Russian gag, where a guy asks his neighbor for something to eat,
so that he has the strength to take a dump on his doorstep, which neatly fits the
situation.
US Troops Die for World Domination, Not Freedom May 31, 2021 Save
On Memorial Day, Caitlin Johnstone says it's important to block the propaganda that helps
feed a steady supply of teenagers into the imperial war machine.
Airman placing U.S. flags at military graves, May 27. (Arlington National Cemetery,
Flickr)
V ice President Kamala Harris spent
the weekend under fire from Republicans, which of course means that Kamala Harris spent the
weekend being criticized for the most silly, vapid reason you could possibly criticize Kamala
Harris for.
Apparently the likely future president tweeted "Enjoy the long weekend,"
a reference to the Memorial Day holiday on Monday, instead of gushing about fallen troops and
sacrifice.
That's it, that's the whole entire story. That silly, irrelevant offense by one of the
sleaziest
people in the single most corrupt and murderous government on earth is the whole entire
basis for histrionic headlines from conservative media outlets like this :
Harris, the born politician, was quick to course correct.
"Throughout our history our service men and women have risked everything to defend our
freedoms and our country," the veep tweeted . "As we prepare to honor
them on Memorial Day, we remember their service and their sacrifice."
Which is of course complete bullshit. It has been generations since any member of the U.S.
military could be said to have served or sacrificed defending America or its freedoms, and that
has been the case throughout almost the entirety of its history. If you are reading this it is
statistically unlikely that you are of an age where any U.S. military personnel died for any
other reason than corporate profit and global domination, and if you are it's almost certain
you weren't old enough to have had mature thoughts about it at the time.
Whenever you criticize the U.S. war machine online within earshot of anyone who's
sufficiently propagandized, you will invariably be lectured about the second World War and how
we'd all be speaking German or Japanese without the brave men who died for our freedom. This
makes my point for me: the fact that apologists for U.S. imperialism always need to reach all
the way back through history to the cusp of living memory to find even one single example of
the American military being used for purposes that weren't evil proves that it most certainly
is evil.
But this is one of the main reasons there are so very many movies and history documentaries
made about World War II: it's an opportunity to portray U.S. servicemen bravely fighting and
dying for a noble cause without having to bend the truth beyond recognition. The other major
reason is that focusing on the second World War allows members of the U.S. empire to escape
into a time when the Big Bad Guy on the world stage was someone else.
From the end of World War II to the fall of the U.S.S.R., the U.S. military was used to
smash the spread of communism and secure geostrategic interests toward the ultimate end of
engineering the collapse of the Soviet Union. After this was accomplished in 1991, U.S. foreign
policy officially shifted to preserving a unipolar world order by preventing the rise of any
other superpower which could rival its might.
"In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting stage, the Defense
Department asserts that America's political and military mission in the post-cold-war era
will be to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or
the territory of the former Soviet Union.
A 46-page document that has been circulating at the highest levels of the Pentagon for
weeks, and which Defense Secretary Dick Cheney expects to release later this month, states
that part of the American mission will be 'convincing potential competitors that they need
not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate
interests.'
The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose
position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter
any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy."
This is all U.S. troops have been fighting and dying for since the Berlin Wall came down.
Not "freedom", not "democracy" and certainly not the American people. Just continual
uncontested domination of this planet at all cost: domination of its resources, its trade
routes, its seas, its air, and its humans, no matter how many lives need to risked and snuffed
out in order to achieve it. The U.S. has
killed millions and
displaced tens of millions just since the turn of this century in the reckless pursuit of
that goal.
And, as Smedley Butler spelled out 86 years ago in his still-relevant book War is a Racket , U.S.
military personnel have been dying for profit.
Nothing gets the gears of industry turning like war, and nothing better creates chaotic Wild
West environments of shock and confusion during which more wealth
and power can be grabbed. War profiteers pour immense resources into lobbying ,
think tanks and campaign donations to manipulate and bribe policy makers into making decisions
which promote war and military expansionism,
with astounding success . This is all entirely legal.
It's important to spread awareness that this is all U.S. troops have been dying for, because
the fairy tale that they fight for freedom and for their countrymen is a major propaganda
narrative used in military recruitment. While poverty plays a
significant role in driving up enlistments as predatory recruiters target poor and middle
class youth promising them a future in the nation with the worst income
inequality in the industrialized world, the fact that the aggressively propagandized
glorification of military "service" makes it a more esteemed career path than working at a
restaurant or a grocery store means people are more likely to enlist.
Without all that propaganda deceiving people into believing that military work is something
virtuous, military service would be the most shameful job anyone could possibly have; other
stigmatized jobs like sex work would be regarded as far more noble. You'd be less reluctant to
tell your extended family over Christmas that you're a janitor at a seedy massage parlor than
that you've enlisted in the U.S. military, because instead of congratulating and praising you,
your Uncle Murray would look at you and say, "So you're gonna be killing kids for crude
oil?"
And that's exactly how it should be. Continuing to uphold the lie that U.S. troops fight and
die for a good cause is helping to ensure a steady supply of teenagers to feed into the gears
of the imperial war machine. Stop feeding into the lie that the war machine is worth killing
and being killed for. Not out of disrespect for the dead, but out of reverence for the
living.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those
of Consortium News .
Em , June 1, 2021 at 09:52
Instead of annually memorializing those dead youth, who were, in one way or the other,
coerced to go off to foreign lands to kill or be killed, by other youth, in the name of a
piece of dead symbolic cloth, wouldn't it be a better idea to honor them, while alive in the
prime of living (the world over) by affording them the means to learn, leading by example, to
discover for themselves – how to think critically as to what the real options are,
collectively as well as individually, for survival and thriving.
CNfan , June 1, 2021 at 04:06
"Global domination" for the benefit of a predatory financial oligarchy.
Peter Loeb , June 1, 2021 at 09:11
Read William Hartung's "Prophets of War " to understand the dynamics.
Thank you all for speaking your truth in this dystopian human universe so apparently
lacking human reason and understanding. As is so wisely introduced and recognized herein, the
murderous depravity of the "Wolfwitz Doctrine" being and remaining the public policy
formulation of our national governance, both foreign and domestic, is a fact that every U.S.
citizen should consider and understand on this Memorial Day.
As Usual,
EA
Realist , May 31, 2021 at 17:27
Well stated, perfectly logical again on this subject as always, Caitlin. You out the
warmongers for their game to fleece the public and rape the world all so a handful of already
fat, lazyass but enormously wealthy and influential people can acquire, without the slightest
bit of shame, yet more, more and more of everything there is to be had. You and General
Butler.
Will this message get through, this time? Maybe the billionth time is the charm, eh? Can
the scales suddenly fall from the eyes of the 330 million Americans who will then demand an
immediate end to the madness? On the merits, it's the only conclusion that might realise any
actual justice for our country and the rest of the world upon whose throat it keeps a knee
firmly planted.
Sorry, nothing of the sort shall ever happen, not as long as the entire mercenary mass
media obeys its corporate ownership and speaks nothing but false narratives every minute of
every day. Not as long as the educational system is really nothing more than a propaganda
indoctrination experience for every child born in the glorious USA! Not as long as every
politician occupying any given office is just a bought and paid for tool of the Matrix with
great talents for convincing the masses that 2 + 2 = 3, or 5, or whatever is convenient at
the time to benefit the ledgers of their plutocrat masters.
What better illustrates the reality of my last assertion than the occupancy of the White
House by Sleepy/Creepy Joe Biden who, through age alone, has been reduced to nothing more
than a sack of unresponsive meat firmly trussed up with ropes and pulleys that his handlers
pull this way or that to create an animatronic effect apparently perfectly convincing to the
majority of the American public? Or so they say, based upon some putative election
results.
Truly, thanks for the effort, Caitlin. I do appreciate that some have a grasp on the
truth. I look forward to its recapitulation by yourself and many others to no effect on every
Memorial Day in the USA. It would be unrealistic of me to say otherwise.
Rael Nidess, M.D. , May 31, 2021 at 12:54
Kudos for being one of a very few to mention the central driving ethic behind U.S. foreign
policy since the demise of the USSR: The Wolfowitz Doctrine. As central today as it was when
first published.
"HUNTSVILLE: The Army's experimental Multi-Domain Task Force is a "game changer" that's
turned the tide in "at least 10 wargames," the commander of US Army Pacific says. "Plans are
already changing at the combatant command level because of this." The key: the unit cracked the
Anti-Access, Area Denial (A2/AD) conundrum, Russia and China's dense layered defenses of
long-range missiles, sensors, and networks to coordinate them. "Before, we couldn't penetrate
A2/AD. With it, we could," Gen. Robert Brown said of the task force's performance in "at least
10 exercises and wargames. With the Multi-Domain Task Force," he told me after his remarks to
the AUSA Global conference here, "we could impact their long-range systems and have a much
greater success against an adversary. If I go into any more, it'd be classified."
"In the future, Brown said here last week, "all formations will have to become multi-domain
or they'll be irrelevant, [but] it's going to be years before it can happen." The Army's goal
is modernize enough forces to wage multi-domain warfare against either China or Russia -- but
not both at once -- by 2028." (Breaking Defense)
Comment: I was intrigued when, in April, SecDef Austin announced he was sending two units
with about 500 personnel to Germany. The units are a multi-domain task force and a theater
fires command. Sounded like a mere symbolic move. But there's nothing symbolic about these
particular units. They are an early implementation of the Pentagon's new multi-domain
operations doctrine which focuses on theater level operations. That doesn't mean mass divisions
and corps. It means theater level employment of global assets across the entire spectrum of
conflict. It's still billed as a concept rather than a full blown doctrine, but it's getting
there and is already being implemented in the Pacific theater.
In an Army Chief of Staff paper, "Army Multi-Domain Transformation Ready to Win in
Competition and Conflict" dated 16 March 2021, the multi-domain task force (MDTF) is described
as "theater-level maneuver elements designed to synchronize precision effects and precision
fires in all domains against adversary anti-access/ area denial (A2/AD) networks in all
domains, enabling joint forces to execute their operational plan (OPLAN) directed roles." The
MDTF's purpose is during competition, to "gain and maintain contact with our adversaries to
support the rapid transition to crisis or conflict"; during a crisis, to "deter adversaries and
shape the environment by providing flexible response options to the combatant commander"; and
if conflict arises, to "neutralize adversary A2/AD networks to enable joint freedom of
action."
Russia has been modernizing their doctrine, force structure and equipment in earnest for at
least the last decade. Surely China has been moving in the same direction. It's about time we
do the same. It will be several years, at least, before this doctrine can be fully implemented
with the necessary force structure and equipment. In many ways, our military has atrophied
terribly due to two decades of brigade level, at best, counterinsurgency operations. However,
we should, and apparently are, implementing this new doctrine now with the minimal force
structure changes of the MDTF and the inclusion of EW within cyber. Our current equipment can
be employed more effectively especially if land, sea, air and space systems are better
integrated. It's an evolution, not a revolution.
A2/AD is just modern defense IMO – is it really necessary to have a doctrine that
demands superiority over Russia or China at – lets say – 200 km from their border?
And at which point do we just call this outright agressive posturing ? DougDiggler
says: June
3, 2021 at 1:42 pm
Is this more Pentagon wishful thinking, like their exercise that involved firing a still
nonexistent hypersonic from a B-52? I get the feeling that NATO's ID Pol army would not fare
well in attacking the military professionals of Russia, not even in these proposed multi-front
"crumbling" attacks. However, it is nice that they're finally getting around to studying
Operation Bagration. However I think the operational heirs to that offensive have probably
improved on it and have also spent much time considering being on the receiving end of such a
nightmare. They play chess while we play Nintendo. Christian J. Chuba says:
June
1, 2021 at 5:32 pm
Wow. We've been pushing our navy up Russia and China's nose today and doing the same with
NATO war games on land and air patrols. I hope this doesn't give us a false sense of confidence
to be outright reckless.
For some reason we have become obsessed with depriving the Russians control of their arctic
coastline. I'm not saying we are control freaks (actually we are control freaks) but I can
easily see a situation developing up their if we think we have some technology edge. That is
one place Russia wants to be secure and for some reason, if there is water, we must have our
navy just outside that 12 nautical mile limit.
What kills me is that we do this in the name of 'freedom of navigation' but that route is
going to be mostly transporting Chinese stuff to Europe and only because the Russians are
paying for the necessary ice breakers and rescue stations. In other words, we are waving our
wand over waters that are only navigable because of Russian investment.
Can the MIC make anything other than cost over-runs these days? d74 says:
June
1, 2021 at 11:38 pm
The answer is too easy: no.
Not only are the costs insane, but the functionality is insufficient. Simply put, it doesn't
work or seem unfit for fighting. Stacking technologies is a dream that does not stand up to
warfare realities. 'Keep it simple' seems out of reach.
I followed the adoption of the 120mm mortar by USMC. They started with a good weapon, with
confirmed potential. The end point was tactical paralysis.
This is (was) a very small issue, and an old one. It is significant. blue peacock
says: June
2, 2021 at 9:42 am
Washington would be easy to spot in a game of chess. It's the player with no plan beyond
an aggressive opening. That is no strategy at all. The failure to think several moves ahead
matters.
While I don't agree with everything many pundits including Chas Freeman say about our
behavior with respect to China, I do see the point that Chas makes in the quote above. Iraq and
Afghanistan are great examples. Our political and governmental leadership have no sense of
"smarts", all they've known for decades is bully behavior under both Democrats and Republicans,
especially towards those they perceive as weak, like our "invasion" of Grenada. How would we
actually perform against a serious military rival like China or Russia? What would be the
reporting at hysterical CNN, MSNBC and Fox when a few carrier strike elements are sunk? Would
they be shrieking to unleash nuclear-tipped ICBMs? How would a "mission accomplished" George
Bush/Dick Cheney type with all their hubristic swagger react? The continental US has not been
attacked like ever. What happens when Seattle, Los Angeles and even DC are under actual missile
fire? How would contemporary woke Americans who have no tolerance for "sacrifice" react?
Do we have the force that reflects good value for money considering that we spend more than
Russia & China combined on the military? What type of military do we actually have relative
to the tens of trillions of dollars spent over the last decade on the credit card? What are the
metrics to evaluate actual effectiveness of a military beyond graphics and tables on Powerpoint
slides?
What would an actual strategic plan to crush the CCP look like? IMO, it begins with insuring
no dependence on a Chinese supply chain. Would the Party of Davos even allow that?
"HUNTSVILLE: The Army's experimental Multi-Domain Task Force is a "game changer" that's
turned the tide in "at least 10 wargames," the commander of US Army Pacific says. "Plans are
already changing at the combatant command level because of this." The key: the unit cracked the
Anti-Access, Area Denial (A2/AD) conundrum, Russia and China's dense layered defenses of
long-range missiles, sensors, and networks to coordinate them. "Before, we couldn't penetrate
A2/AD. With it, we could," Gen. Robert Brown said of the task force's performance in "at least
10 exercises and wargames. With the Multi-Domain Task Force," he told me after his remarks to
the AUSA Global conference here, "we could impact their long-range systems and have a much
greater success against an adversary. If I go into any more, it'd be classified."
"In the future, Brown said here last week, "all formations will have to become multi-domain
or they'll be irrelevant, [but] it's going to be years before it can happen." The Army's goal
is modernize enough forces to wage multi-domain warfare against either China or Russia -- but
not both at once -- by 2028." (Breaking Defense)
Comment: I was intrigued when, in April, SecDef Austin announced he was sending two units
with about 500 personnel to Germany. The units are a multi-domain task force and a theater
fires command. Sounded like a mere symbolic move. But there's nothing symbolic about these
particular units. They are an early implementation of the Pentagon's new multi-domain
operations doctrine which focuses on theater level operations. That doesn't mean mass divisions
and corps. It means theater level employment of global assets across the entire spectrum of
conflict. It's still billed as a concept rather than a full blown doctrine, but it's getting
there and is already being implemented in the Pacific theater.
In an Army Chief of Staff paper, "Army Multi-Domain Transformation Ready to Win in
Competition and Conflict" dated 16 March 2021, the multi-domain task force (MDTF) is described
as "theater-level maneuver elements designed to synchronize precision effects and precision
fires in all domains against adversary anti-access/ area denial (A2/AD) networks in all
domains, enabling joint forces to execute their operational plan (OPLAN) directed roles." The
MDTF's purpose is during competition, to "gain and maintain contact with our adversaries to
support the rapid transition to crisis or conflict"; during a crisis, to "deter adversaries and
shape the environment by providing flexible response options to the combatant commander"; and
if conflict arises, to "neutralize adversary A2/AD networks to enable joint freedom of
action."
Russia has been modernizing their doctrine, force structure and equipment in earnest for at
least the last decade. Surely China has been moving in the same direction. It's about time we
do the same. It will be several years, at least, before this doctrine can be fully implemented
with the necessary force structure and equipment. In many ways, our military has atrophied
terribly due to two decades of brigade level, at best, counterinsurgency operations. However,
we should, and apparently are, implementing this new doctrine now with the minimal force
structure changes of the MDTF and the inclusion of EW within cyber. Our current equipment can
be employed more effectively especially if land, sea, air and space systems are better
integrated. It's an evolution, not a revolution.
A2/AD is just modern defense IMO – is it really necessary to have a doctrine that
demands superiority over Russia or China at – lets say – 200 km from their border?
And at which point do we just call this outright agressive posturing ? DougDiggler
says: June
3, 2021 at 1:42 pm
Is this more Pentagon wishful thinking, like their exercise that involved firing a still
nonexistent hypersonic from a B-52? I get the feeling that NATO's ID Pol army would not fare
well in attacking the military professionals of Russia, not even in these proposed multi-front
"crumbling" attacks. However, it is nice that they're finally getting around to studying
Operation Bagration. However I think the operational heirs to that offensive have probably
improved on it and have also spent much time considering being on the receiving end of such a
nightmare. They play chess while we play Nintendo. Christian J. Chuba says:
June
1, 2021 at 5:32 pm
Wow. We've been pushing our navy up Russia and China's nose today and doing the same with
NATO war games on land and air patrols. I hope this doesn't give us a false sense of confidence
to be outright reckless.
For some reason we have become obsessed with depriving the Russians control of their arctic
coastline. I'm not saying we are control freaks (actually we are control freaks) but I can
easily see a situation developing up their if we think we have some technology edge. That is
one place Russia wants to be secure and for some reason, if there is water, we must have our
navy just outside that 12 nautical mile limit.
What kills me is that we do this in the name of 'freedom of navigation' but that route is
going to be mostly transporting Chinese stuff to Europe and only because the Russians are
paying for the necessary ice breakers and rescue stations. In other words, we are waving our
wand over waters that are only navigable because of Russian investment.
Anyway, so they were able to develop a simulation? That's impressive.
Believe it or not, the president says that human rights R us.
Hear that, BLM? Women? Asian Americans? Hispanics? homeless? heavily indebted students? .
. the list goes on.
Biden said so, May 30, 2021
"I had a long conversation -- for two hours -- recently with President Xi, making it clear
to him that we could do nothing but speak out for human rights around the world because
that's who we are. I'll be meeting with President Putin in a couple of weeks in Geneva,
making it clear that we will not -- we will not stand by and let him abuse those rights." . .
here
..reminds me of Aeschylus: "In war, truth is the first casualty."
Biden backed down on Nordstream 2 and, at The Davos Crowd's insistence, he will back down on
the JCPOA.
Davos needs cheap energy into Europe. That's ultimately what the JCPOA was all about. The
basic framework for the deal is still there. While the U.S. will kick and scream a bit about
sanctions relief, Iran will be back into the oil market and make it possible for Europe to once
again invest in oil/gas projects in Iran.
Now
that Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer going to be leading Israel, the probability of
breakthrough is much much higher than last week. The Likudniks in Congress and the Senate just
lost their raison d'etre. The loss of face for Israel in Bibi's latest attempt to bludgeon Gaza
to retain power backfired completely.
U.S. policy towards Israel is shifting rapidly as the younger generations, Gen-X and
Millennials, simply don't have the same allegiance to Israel that the Baby Boomers and Silent
generations did. It is part of a geopolitical ethos which is outdated.
So, with some deal over Iran's nuclear capability in the near future, Europe will then get
gas pipelines from Iran through Turkey as well as gain better access to the North South
Transport Corridor which is now unofficially part of China's Belt and Road Initiative.
Russia, now that Nordstream 2 is nearly done, will not balk at this. In fact, they'll
welcome it. It forms the basis for a broader, sustainable peace arrangement in the Middle East.
What's lost is the Zionist program for Greater Israel and continued sowing dissent between
exhausted participants.
But the big geopolitical win for Davos, they think, is that by returning Iran to the oil
markets it will cut down on Russia's dominance there. That the only reason Russia is the price
setter in oil today, as the producer of the marginal barrel, is because of Trump taking Iranian
and Venezuelan oil off the market.
With these negotiations ongoing and likely to conclude soon I'm sure the thinking is that
this will help save Iranian moderates in the upcoming elections. But with Iran's Guardian
Council paving the way for Ebrahim Raeisi to win the election that is also very unlikely(
H/T to Pepe
Escobar's latest on this ) :
So Raeisi now seems to be nearly a done deal: a relatively faceless bureaucrat without the
profile of an IRGC hardliner, well known for his anti-corruption fight and care about the
poor and downtrodden. On foreign policy, the crucial fact is that he will arguably follow
crucial IRGC dictates.
Raeisi is already spinning that he "negotiated quietly" to secure the qualification of
more candidates, "to make the election scene more competitive and participatory". The problem
is no candidate has the power to sway the opaque decisions of the 12-member Guardian Council,
composed exclusively by clerics: only Ayatollah Khamenei.
I have no doubt that Iran is, as Escobar suggests, in post-JCPOA mode now and will walk away
from Geneva without a deal if need be, but Davos will cut the deal it needs to bring the oil
and gas into Europe while still blaming the U.S. for Iran's nuclear ambitions because they've
gotten what they actually wanted, Netanyahu out of power.
Seeing the tenor of these negotiations and the return of Obama to the White House, the
Saudis saw the writing on the wall immediately and began peace talks with Iran in Baghdad put
off for a year because of Trump's killing Soleimani.
The Saudis are fighting for their lives now as the Shia Crescent forms and China holds the
House of Saud's future in its hands.
Syria will be restored to the Arab League and all that 'peace' work by Trump will be undone
quickly. Because none of it was actually peaceful in its implementation. Netanyahu is gone,
Israel just got
defeated by Hamas and now the rest of the story can unfold, put on hold by four years of
Jared Kushner's idiocy and U.S. neoconservatives feeding Trump bad information about the
situation.
The Saker put together two lists in his latest article (linked above) which puts the entire
situation into perspective:
The Goals:
Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces,
and security services.
Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone" by
Israel not only in the Golan but further north.
Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a "security zone,"
but this time in Lebanon.
Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
Break up Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East
and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas
or oil pipeline project.
Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert, and eventually attack Iran with a broad regional
coalition of forces.
Eliminate all centers of Shia power in the Middle-East.
The Outcomes:
The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more
capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war
initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all reports,
they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah were literally
"plugging holes" in the Syrian frontlines and "extinguishing fires" on local flashpoints.
Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their country,
including every single city in Syria).
Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the country now,
which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is backfiring.
(2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in charge)
Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced
refugees are returning home.
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility
left.
The net result is everyone in the region who were aggressors are now suing for peace. This
is why I expect some kind of deal that returns Iran to the global economy. There's no way for
Germany's shiny new trade deal with China to work without this.
Trump's hard line against Iran was always a mistake, even if Iran's nuclear ambitions are
real. But with the Open Skies treaty now a dead letter the U.S. has real logistical problems in
the region and they only multiply if Erdogan in Turkey finally chooses a side and gives up his
Neo-Ottoman ambitions, now very likely.
But when it comes to economics, as always, Davos has this all backwards vis a vis oil. They
still think they can use the JCPOA to drive a wedge between Iran and Russia over oil. They
still think Putin only cares about oil and gas sales abroad. It's clear they don't listen to
him because the policy never seems to change.
So, to Davos, if they bring 2.5 to 3 million barrels per day from Iran back online and oil
prices drop, this forces Russia to back down militarily and diplomatically in Eastern Europe.
With a free-floated ruble the Russians don't care now that they are mostly self-sufficient in
food and raw material production.
None of that will come to pass. Putin is shifting the Russian economy away from oil and gas
with an announced ambitious domestic spending plan ahead of this fall's State Duma elections.
Lower or even stable prices will accelerate those plans as capital no longer finds its best
return in that sector.
This carrot to Iran and stick to Russia approach of Brussels/Davos is childish and it will
only get worse when the Greens come to power in Germany at the end of the year. Unless the
German elections end in a stalemate which is unforeseen, the CDU will grand coalition as the
junior partner to the Greens, just as Davos wants it.
Don't miss the significance of the policy bifurcation either when it comes to oil. The Biden
administration is trying to make energy as expensive as possible in the U.S. -- no Keystone
Pipeline, Whitmer trying to close down Enbridges's Line 5 from Canada into Michigan, etc. --
while Europe gets Nordstream 2 from Russia and new, cheap supplies from Iran.
This is what had Trump so hopping mad when he was President. This is part of why he hated
the JCPOA. Israel and the EastMed pipeline was what should have been the U.S. policy in his
mind.
Now, those dreams are dead and the sell out of the U.S. to Davos is in full swing.
Seriously, Biden/Obama are going to continue on this path of undermining U.S. energy production
until they are thrown out of office, either by the overwhelming shame of the election fraud
lawsuits which recall Senators from Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, the mid-term elections which
brings a more pro-Trump GOP to power or by military force. That last bit I put a very low
probability on.
Bottom line, for now global oil prices have likely peaked no matter what drivel comes out of
John Kerry's mouth.
The Brent/WTI spread will likely collapse and go negative for the first time in years as
Iran's full oil production comes online over the next two years while U.S. production falls.
We'll see rising oil prices in the U.S. while global supply rises, some of which China is
getting at a steep discount from who? Iran.
Meanwhile Russia continues to hold the EU to account on everything while unmasking the not
just the latest Bellingcat/MI6/State Dept. nonsense in Belarus surrounding the arrest of Roman
Petrosovich, but also filling the void diplomatically left by a confused and incompetent U.S.
policy in the Middle East.
If I'm the Bennett in Israel, the first phone call I make after taking office is to no one
other than Putin, who now holds the reins over Iran, Hezbollah and a very battle-hardened and
angry Syria who just re-elected Assad because he navigated the assault on the country with no
lack of geopolitical skill.
Because it is clear that Biden/Obama, on behalf of Davos , have left Israel out to twist in
the wind surrounded by those who wish it gone. We'll see if they get their wish. I think the
win here is clear and the days of U.S. adventurism in the Middle East are numbered.
The oil wars aren't over, by any stretch of the imagination, but the outcome of the main
battles have decisively shifted who determines what battles are fought next.
About time that fcking Project for the New American Century(aka Greater Israel from the
Nile to the Euphates) got derailed .
Fcking useless neocon sh its gutted and bankrupted the U.S. for their fcked up ziosh it
garbage.
Sheldon Adelson belongs in the Aus witz Mengele suite in hell. He was the biggest
cheerleader for the last 20 years of this hell on earth that was created in the middle
east.
Woodenman 2 hours ago remove link
Trump got it *** backwards , he should have defunded Israel and fast tracked Iran to be
a nuclear power, Iran is an oil producer, what does Israel do for us?
Would I care that Israel cannot sleep at night knowing Iran has the bomb, not at
all.
AGuy 37 minutes ago
" what does Israel do for us? "
Keeps the ME unstable so the US has the excuse to keep a lot of military resources in
the ME, in the name of being the worlds policemen. Plus the US needs to protect the Petro
dollar, but at this point I don't think that will matter soon considering the amount of
money printing & spending the US is doing at the momement.
wellwaddyaknow 2 hours ago (Edited)
Soleimani was very good at destroying ISIS trash.
And which countries backed ISIS?
JR Wirth 2 hours ago
NeoCon tears as the world attempts to move on from deranged foreign policy. Will the US
throw a fit and drag the world into war? Let's call Tel Aviv and find out.
Der Steppenwolf 2 hours ago remove link
Iran already sells huge amounts of oil to China and likely many others, there just isn't
going to be a significant increase in Iranian oil hitting the market as a result of any
deal. Moreover, this relatively small increase will occur over time. Even if Iran
eventually increases production the 2.5-3 million bpd the author cites, world consumption
in 2021 is forecast to increase about 6 million bpd over 2020. Considering these facts any
changes in Iranian oil production should do little to affect the overall
price.
lay_arrow
AGuy 42 minutes ago
" Iran has huge potential to increase production "
I doubt that very much. Iran has very old oil fields which have been producing since the
1920s. Global Oil production peaked in 2018 & is now in permanent decline. Iran could
increase NatGas production, but Oil production is in permanent decline.
Apollo 32 minutes ago
God, I hope half of the above comes true. Bibi needs to be court martialed and Israel
needs to go back into smaller and more peaceful version of itself (if that is even
possible) . USA can just bugger off home, and try to deal with transgendered army,
president's dementia and critical race theory nonsense first.
What the world needs is less wars, less central bankers screwing the game and less
stealing of other people's natural resources. Instead it just more plain old hard work,
honest trading and no bs diplomacy.
dead hobo 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
Amazingly perfect analysis.
Israel will survive. I wish them well.
So many US wars are oil based. Lies abound to cover this up. Neocon Economics turns
every war opportunity into a profit center. No Profit = No War potential. Whenever you see
a Neocon pumping a war somewhere, you need to look for who will make scads of money from
it.
Trump isn't an angel. He's the guy who destroyed Establishment Republicanism. That begat
populism. I detested him working his book when he pumped QE and ZIRP. I considered it a
temporary price to pay to remove Establishment Republicans from the world. Yes, the US also
needed a good Front Door with a lock. He also did good there. Trump playing the Imperialism
Game clumsily worked in the favor of Peaceful Coexistence. Probably by mistake. Ok by me if
everyone else declares peace anyway.
The US economy can still outpower anyone even if it is forced to play fair.
This brings us to the Deep State. Who exactly are they?
Are they Neocons who want war profits by making it look like others are the war mongers?
Are they anti-peace as long as it doesn't start a full blown war - providing a profit can
be made from it by their oligarch bosses?
Or is the Deep State the Davos oriented oligarchs who wants the 99% to whistle while
they work to support uncountable billions of dollars flowing into the asset piles of the
1%?
Why did the Deep State allow the BLM / Antifa / Democrat cabal take over? Are they
stupid? Or did they think Covid-19 along with these freaks would work in their favor
somehow?
Is the Deep State only common ordinary Imperialism? Is it only oil, and natural gas and
who gets to control the markets? Ukraine has a lot of natural resources. Is that a
coincidence?
What is it about Peaceful Coexistence that makes them go crazy?
What does The Deep State really want?
AGuy 49 minutes ago
" The only difference will be the wars will be fought for lithium and other rare metals.
"
Unlikely Oil will remain the King for causing wars. electricification of transportation
is doomed to fail. First average Americans cannot afford EV. heck they are struggling with
cheaper ICE vehicles. Auto loan duration have ballooned & most Americans are rolling
over debt from their older vehicle when they buy a new one. Second the grid is struggling.
Most of the older power plants are getting replaced by NatGas fired plants & at some
point we are going to see NatGas prices shoot up. Much of the US grid was built in the
1930s & 1940s and will need trillions just to maintain it and replace equipment &
power lines operating beyond their expected operating lifetime.
The US economy is slowly collapsing: Mountains of debt, demographics, dumbed down
education, and worthless degrees for Millennials, failing infrastructure (ie I-40 bridge).
We are on borrowed time.
AJAX-2 1 hour ago remove link
The fly in the ointment is that the banksters desperately need higher oil prices to prop
up their derivative portfolios. As a result, they are at odds with the Davos Crowd and
their desire for cheap/plentiful oil for Europe. We shall see who prevails.
AGuy 1 hour ago
" The fly in the ointment is that the banksters desperately need higher oil prices to
prop up their derivative portfolios. "
Nope:
Higher oil prices leads to higher defaults, which is likely to trigger derivative
losses. Banker shady deals come under congressional\agency scrutiny usually ending with
billion dollar fines, and bad press. A lot of banks probably will get nationalized when the
next banking crisis happens & all those bankers will lose out on the financial scams
they play.
European Monarchist 46 minutes ago remove link
Currently:
The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more
capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war
initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all
reports, they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah
were literally "plugging holes" in the Syrian frontlines and "extinguishing fires" on
local flashpoints. Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large
chunks of their country, including every single city in Syria).
Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the
country now, which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is
backfiring. (2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in
charge)
Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced
refugees are returning home.
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no
credibility left.
The net result is everyone in the region who were aggressors are now suing for peace.
This is why I expect some kind of deal that returns Iran to the global economy. There's
no way for Germany's shiny new trade deal with China to work without this.
ut218 2 hours ago remove link
Solarcycle 25 had a bad start. By 2028 people will realize we are in a period of global
cooling. oil prices will soar
Itinerant 18 minutes ago
There won't be major investments of European majors in Iran's oil industry.
For Iran, Western partners have proved too fickle
For Western corporations, the risk is too great for long term investment.
China will be reaping most of the investement opportunities.
2 play_arrow
Marrubio 1 hour ago
.... the NWO & Davos idiotards ,they have been trying since March for oil not to
exceed the $ 70 barrier and they are not succeeding. Week after week they try to lower the
price, frightening with the covid, the production of Iran or whatever, and the following
week the oil rises again. The only thing left for them is mass slaughter ... but now people
know that what is going to kill them is in the "vaccine". Of course they will be stupid
enough to do it; if they have shown anything it is that they are profoundly idiots. They
will not be successful in getting cheap oil, simply because PeakOil is running since 2018
and since then oil production decreases at 5% per year: -5% per year, I am telling to the
NWO deep idiotards.
European Monarchist 55 minutes ago (Edited)
Interesting, but it remains to be seen where this is going, short term and long.
Now
that Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer going to be leading Israel, the probability of
breakthrough is much much higher than last week. The Likudniks in Congress and the Senate
just lost their raison d'etre. The loss of face for Israel in Bibi's latest attempt to
bludgeon Gaza to retain power backfired completely.
U.S. policy towards Israel is shifting rapidly as the younger generations, Gen-X and
Millennials, simply don't have the same allegiance to Israel that the Baby Boomers and
Silent generations did. It is part of a geopolitical ethos which is outdated.
So, with some deal over Iran's nuclear capability in the near future, Europe will then
get gas pipelines from Iran through Turkey as well as gain better access to the North
South Transport Corridor which is now unofficially part of China's Belt and Road
Initiative.
Russia, now that Nordstream 2 is nearly done, will not balk at this. In fact, they'll
welcome it. It forms the basis for a broader, sustainable peace arrangement in the Middle
East. What's lost is the Zionist program for Greater Israel and continued sowing dissent
between exhausted participants.
play_arrow
Einstein101 55 minutes ago remove link
Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their
country, including every single city in Syria).
Really? Hell no! The Syrians and the mighty Russians and the Hezbollah for many months
now are not able to overcome lowly terrorists militia in northern Syria's Idlib. Plus,
the Israelis has been launching hundreds of airstrikes over Syria while the Russian made
Syrian anti air defense can do nothing about it.
"... No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides. Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the right amount of detail and scope. ..."
"... Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is. ..."
"... This is exactly the kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better. ..."
I'm a professor at the University of California San Diego and I'm assigning
this for a graduate class.
No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides.
Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is
highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the
right amount of detail and scope.
I could not disagree more with the person who gave this book one star. Take it from me: I've taught hundreds of college students
who graduate among the best in their high school classes and they know close to nothing about the history of US settler colonialism,
overseas imperialism, or US interventionism around the world. If you give University of California college students a quiz on
where the US' overseas territories are, most who take it will fail (trust me, I've done it). And this is not their fault. Instead,
it's a product of the US education system that fails to give students a nuanced and geographically comprehensive understanding
of the oversized effect that their country has around our planet.
Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies
of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native
American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations
and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is.
A case in point is Puerto Rico's current fiscal and economic crisis. The island's political class share part of the blame for
Puerto Rico's present rut. A lot of it is also due to unnatural (i.e. "natural" but human-exacerbated) disasters such as Hurricane
María. However, there is no denying that the evolution of Puerto Rico's territorial status has generated a host of adverse economic
conditions that US states (including an island state such as Hawaii) do not have to contend with. An association with the US has
undoubtedly raised the floor of material conditions in these places, but it has also imposed an unjust glass ceiling that most
people around the US either do not know about or continue to ignore.
To add to those unfair economic limitations, there are political injustices regarding the lack of representation in Congress,
and in the case of Am. Samoa, their lack of US citizenship. The fact that the populations in the overseas territories can't make
up their mind about what status they prefer is: a) understandable given the way they have been mistreated by the US government,
and b) irrelevant because what really matters is what Congress decides to do with the US' far-flung colonies, and there is no
indication that Congress wants to either fully annex them or let them go because neither would be convenient to the 50 states
and the political parties that run them. Instead, the status quo of modern colonial indeterminacy is what works best for the most
potent political and economic groups in the US mainland. Would
This book is about much more than that though. It's also a history of how and why the United States got to control so much
of what happens around the world without creating additional formal colonies like the "territories" that exist in this legal limbo.
Part of its goal is to show how precisely how US imperialism has been made to be more cost-effective and also more invisible.
Read Immerwhar's book, and don't listen to the apologists of US imperialism which is still an active force that contradicts
the US' professed values and that needs to be actively dismantled. Their attempts at discrediting this important reflect a denialism
of the US' imperial realities that has endured throughout the history that this book summarizes.
"How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States" is a great starting point for making the US public aware of
the US' contradictions as an "empire of liberty" (a phrase once used by Thomas Jefferson to describe the US as it expanded westward
beyond the original 13 colonies). It is also a necessary update to other books on this topic that are already out there, and it
is likely to hold the reader's attention more given its crafty narrative prose and structure
Read less 194 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment
Report abuse
This is exactly the
kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments
existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction
into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better.
The author of this compelling book reveals a history unknown to many
readers, and does so with first-hand accounts and deep historical analyses. You might ask why we can't put such things behind
us. The simple answer: we've never fully grappled with these events before in an honest and open way. This book does the nation
a service by peering behind the curtain and facing the sobering truth of how we came to be what we are.
This is a stunning book, not to be missed. If you finished Sapiens with the feeling your world view had
greatly enlarged, you're likely to have the same experience of your view of the US from reading this engaging work. And like Sapiens,
it's an entirely enjoyable read, full of delightful surprises, future dinner party gems.
The further you get into the book the more interesting and unexpected it becomes. You'll look at the US in ways you likely
never considered before. This is not a 'political' book with an ax to grind or a single-party agenda. It's refreshingly insightful,
beautifully written, fun to read.
This is a gift I'll give to many a good friend, I've just started with my wife. I rarely write
reviews and have never met the author (now my only regret). 3 people found this helpful
This book is an absolutely powerhouse, a must-read, and should be a part of every student's curriculum in
this God forsaken country.
Strictly speaking, this brilliant read is focused on America's relationship with Empire. But like with nearly everything America,
one cannot discuss it without discussing race and injustice.
If you read this book, you will learn a lot of new things about subjects that you thought you knew everything about. You will
have your eyes opened. You will be exposed to the dark underbelly of racism, corruption, greed and exploitation that undergird
American ambition.
I don't know exactly what else to say other than to say you MUST READ THIS BOOK. This isn't a partisan statement -- it's not
like Democrats are any better than Republicans in this book.
This is one of the best books I've ever read, and I am a voracious reader. The content is A+. It never gets boring. It never
gets tedious. It never lingers on narratives. It's extremely well written. It is, in short, perfect. And as such, 10/10.
I heard an interview of Daniel Immerwahr on NPR news / WDET radio regarding this book.
I'm am quite conservative
and only listen to NPR news when it doesn't lean too far to the left.
However, the interview piqued my interest. I am so glad I
purchased this ebook. What a phenomenal and informative read!!! WOW!! It's a "I never knew that" kind of read. Certainly not anything
I was taught in school. This is thoughtful, well written and an easy read. Highly recommend!!
NORDSTREAM. Washington has lifted sanctions on German companies involved with the pipeline
but imposed
new ones on Russian entities . What are we to make of this? A realisation that Berlin is
determined on completion combined with face-saving meaningless toughness. Amusingly Biden's now
being called " Putin's $5
million man " (because of the supposed payout by the pipeline to the supposed Russian
supposed hackers). Nordstream was a " key Putin goal ",
giving
power to Putin , what does he have
on him ? Hilarious, isn't it? Biden loved it then: here he is calling Trump Putin's puppy
.
I saw this today and while I can't say it is surprising, I am sorry that we are officially
at the end of the "engagement" period with China. I hate to see our major challenges in the
world increase.
I was wondering if you think we will officially recategorize our relationship with Russia,
too? If so, would you expect us to also label that "competitive?" How do you think this change
in our China stance will affect Russia?
Thanks.
"The U.S. is entering a period of intense competition with China as the government running
the world's second-biggest economy becomes ever more tightly controlled by President Xi
Jinping, the White House's top official for Asia said. "The period that was broadly described
as engagement has come to an end," Kurt Campbell, the U.S. coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs
on the National Security Council, said Wednesday at an event hosted by Stanford University.
U.S. policy toward China will now operate under a "new set of strategic parameters," Campbell
said, adding that "the dominant paradigm is going to be competition." (via Bloomberg News)
Reply
Dollar short and a day late. The US has lost the competition.
The USA was mighty because of tremendous manufacturing capacity, great inventiveness and
the ability to harness that, political stability and the "American Dream" had sufficient
reality. What's left of that? And the same applies to the West in general.
As to Moscow, why would it ever trust Washington?
One can't blame everything on Israel. Yes, it is part of five eyes, more like SIX
eyes.
Biden (JB) is building a coalition to challenge China. JB's administration wants to
neutralize Russia. Nord Stream 2 is an element of contention and by making a concession JB is
making Germany and Russia happy. Agree, that its completion will be a "huge geopolitical win
for Putin". Let's see when Nord Stream 2 becomes fully operational. Time will tell.
Russia's main focus is De-Dollarization, stability in Russia and in its neighborhood.
China's announcement about Bitcoin led to it dropping by 30%. What will China, Russia,
Turkey and Iran announcement about the U$A dollar do to its value and the market? When will
China become the #1 ECONOMY?
The US is now the largest provider of LNG, so there is relatively little more financial
advantage to be gained from a direct confrontation with Germany or Russia. Political maybe,
but the dedollarisation is starting to take hold. (Aside; even Israel depends on the strength
of the dollar to continue, like musical chairs, when the music stops there will be
precious few chairs left ). The Gas/Oil lobbies in the US who are behind the sanctions
may have some other trick up their sleeve, but the deflation of Zelensky in Ukraine, and the
opening up of a steal-fest of Ukrainian assets might compensate.
***
Note that the West has closed Syrian Embassies so as to stop Syrians voting for Assad. They
steal it's oil, and Syria is still next to Israel and doing relatively well in spite of
tanker bombings, and missiles. It is also possible that, as you say, there is a price for
non-interference in Israel itself.
The key characteristics of the SOCIOECONOMIC system of a suzerainty are hierarchy, polarization and exploitation. This enables
the Global Financial Syndicate to drive PRIVATE CONTROL by privatization, extracting profits and increasing its power. Without
this system it can't survive, capture new entities and increase its power.
In analyzing any situation one need to understand the POWER DYNAMICS. This enables one to understand the hierarchy of religions,
nations, corporations, elites,...There seems to be a well defined playbook that is being followed to expand the global power.
However, now it seems to be failing?
Is this a good chart of the
POWER PLAYERS
driving U$A's and international developments?
(Solid lines refer to funding and dashed lines refer to mostly ideological connections)
Are there better charts and overview of the power players?
If one were to view Israel from an imperialist lens then it is a beachhead in the Middle East of the Financial Empire like
the Colony of Virginia (1606). The IMPERIALIST goal is to create a Middle East Union (MEU), similar to the United States and the
EU. Israel will be the financial, technological, military and trading hub of the ME? It will drive decimation of states to steal
the region's land, oil gas and natural resources, so they can be priced in the Empire's currency.
What were the strategies and tactics used by the Imperialist settlers to steal land from the Native Americans? Wasn't (freedom
of) religion one of the dimensions? How was the LAND stolen from natives of America? Weren't treaties made in bad faith? "In 1830,
US Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, forcing many indigenous peoples east of the Mississippi from their lands."
Ayn Rand framed
it as ... to the graduating Class Of U$A's military academy at West Point
Which of the past patterns of stealing land and getting rid of the natives are being repeated by Israel? We're watching a tragedy
and living through an epoch in the history of humanity.
One more thing... MECHANISM of power & control expansions to capture resources and control points...
Is this a good overview of what happened in
Ukraine? It discusses various power players,
plans and ploys.
"Anyone who does not understand contemporary history as a chain of decisions and events and instead always takes only the end
link of a long chain into account – will not understand anything at all."
"We must cultivate among the Ukrainians a people whose consciousness is altered to such an extent, that they begin to hate
everything Russian". -- Who said this & why?
The Dollar Empire is working towards neutralizing Russia through short term concessions. Russia has defined redlines and demanded
no interferences with Nord Stream 2, Belarus, Syria & Ukraine (implementation of the Minsk agreement). Also, no NATO membership
for Ukraine and Georgia. Russia wants to develop Iran and Turkey as regional powers, and be the third power to that of the U$A
and China. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
The The Hill piece linked in the week in review here confirms our suspicions Ukraine has
become a financial black hole for the West, and the USA is trying to get rid of it by
throwing it to the EU's arms:
Instead of expending diplomatic capital on a campaign to stop Nord Stream 2, the Biden
administration should work with its European partners to prepare Ukraine to withstand the
pipeline's completion. The deadline for action is 2024, when Kyiv's current gas contract
and President Biden's term effectively end. By that time, Washington and Brussels should
formulate and implement an economic package that, first and foremost, covers Ukraine's
inevitable budget shortfall from the loss of transit fees to keep the Ukrainian state
running. This package should, however, also invest in the country's sustainable growth.
That would entail material and technical support for Kyiv's ongoing anti-corruption
campaign, whose success is a prerequisite for attracting long-term investment. One idea
worth considering is a loan to cover revenue shortfalls, whose repayment would be
incrementally forgiven in exchange for concrete progress on reforms by Kyiv.
That won't happen. The easiest way you can infer that is that the USA and Germany don't
even have the resources to invest in green energy in their own territories, let alone on
third-parties' territories. Hell, the USA doesn't even have the resources to rebuild Puerto
Rico.
This is not the 1950s. The American Empire's bottomless pocket is no more.
Glenn Greenwald writes that President Trump acted more hostile to Russia than President
Biden does, even while the media claimed that Trump was 'a Russian agent'. It is probably a
fair point to make but in his piece Greenwald himself falls for anti-Russian propaganda
nonsense.
Greenwald seems to presume that it is the right or the job of a U.S. president to 'permit'
pipelines between two foreign country? That is of course completely false. The U.S. has no
right, duty or whatever to interfere in regular businesses between foreign partners. Such
interference is in fact illegal under international law. Biden, as well as Trump, should be
criticized for even thinking about 'permitting' it.
On to Greenwald's main point:
When it came to actual vital Russian interests" as opposed to the symbolic gestures hyped
by the liberal cable and op-ed page circus" Trump and his administration were confronting
and undermining the Kremlin in ways Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, had, to his credit,
steadfastly refused to do.
Indeed, the foreign policy trait relentlessly attributed to Trump in support of the
media's Cold War conspiracy theory" namely, an aversion to confronting Putin" was, in
reality, an overarching and explicit belief of President Obama's foreign policy, not
President Trump's.
Obama waged a massive undercover war to overthrow the Syrian government, an old Russian
ally. He arranged a fascist coup in the Ukraine and he sent the anti-Russian academic Michael
McFaul as ambassador to Russia where McFaul immediately started to prepare a color revolution
against President Putin. It was the Obama administration which launched the 'Russiagate'
campaign against Trump which further infested U.S. policies with anti-Russian sentiment.
Seen from the Russian side Obama certainly showed absolutely no 'aversion to confronting
Putin'.
While Trump ripped up arms treaties with Russia and gave a few useless weapons to the
Ukraine, making sure they would not reach the front lines, he otherwise took, thankfully, few
other damaging steps.
Well, the fact that the pipeline has not been finished for years, despite being near
completion, tells us that it's not actually true that the "pipeline would have been finished
with or without US sanctions." Certainly, it seems that Trump's pressure did work to severely
slow down if not completely stop the completion of the project and presumably Biden could
have continued that pressure. Btw, didn't the front-running Green party head come out against
the pipeline, showing that there's not unanimous support in Germany for its completion?
But more importantly, Greenwald's main point is that Trump's actions had nothing to do
with the Russian Puppet narrative against him. That both Biden and previously Obama were less
"anti-Russian" in practice and yet were thought to be "tough" on Russia, while Trump
(providing lethal arms to Ukraine and stopping NS2) was a "puppet" ... narrative building by
the Deep State. Greenwald's larger point is in fact accurate.
I think Greenwald was thrown off by what seems a sudden reversal and positive step by
Biden administration.
Personally I think Biden Administration was stunned at almost having instigated WW3 within
100 days of taking office. They looked fairly like amateur idiots even to the unwashed such
as myself. Then they realized that it would be difficult and given their evident ineptness
they chose the well proven political tactic of taking the loss and making it a win. Voila
they are genious - why didnt Trump think of that?
We in the US must accept that our government is craven incompetents and have to hope that
they might accidentally do something good by virtue of being so incompetent.
Greenwald makes an error but it is understandable. NS2 pipeline wont deliver enough gas to
truly make a significant difference to Germany. Where it makes a difference is to Ukraine,
which will struggle to steal as much gas from Russia as it has in the past. Gas transit rates
will fall, and if Ukraine doesnt like it RF will still be able to supply Germany without
Ukraine stealing gas which was meant for Germany.
But who will make good any shortfall in Ukraine's budget?
The early closure of the Netherlands Groningen natural gas field, due to land subsidence,
was a big hit to European energy security - especially with the move from coal/nuclear to
natural gas. B is very right in stating that Europe desperately needs Russian gas to fill a
yawning future hole between supply and demand. Russia is also developing their Arctic gas
reserves, which can be provided as LNG to Europe (as well as Asia). Very bad for the
Ukrainians, but they (or the US and the Nazis) picked their bed and can deal with the
consequences.
The Russians opened the Power of Siberia gas pipeline to China, and have agreements to
start development on additional pipelines. China is rapidly expanding natural gas usage so no
demand problem there.
Seems like the Biden administration took their "hardass" shot in the past months and it
blew up in their face. Now they have to take a step back and play a bit better with their
so-called allies. Probably won't last long, the US elite have extreme learning difficulties
when it comes to the reality of their decline from the Unipolar moment.
This is somewhat OT to the subject, but it's clear to me a greater understanding of the
Russian POV is needed. Although the transcript is currently incomplete, this meeting of the Russian
Pobeda (Victory) Organising Committee provides an excellent insight into the Russian
mind, and IMO this excerpt says a great deal:
"Regrettably, the ranks of the great generation of victors are thinning out. But this is
only increasing our responsibility for preserving their legacy, especially now that we are
witnessing increasingly frequent attempts to slander and distort history and to revise the
role played by the Red Army in the routing of Nazism and the liberation of European nations
from the Nazi plague.
"We understand the reasons for this, and attempts to hamper the development of this
country, regardless of its name, be it the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union or Russia, were
made in different times and historical epochs and under different political systems. These
approaches and principles remain the same. There is one principle or rather, one reason
for containing Russia: the stronger and more independent Russia becomes, the more
consistently it defends its national interests, the greater the striving of foreign forces to
weaken it, to discredit the values uniting our society and sometimes to slander and distort
what people hold dear, the things that are instilled in the younger generations of Russians
and which help them acquire a strong character and their own opinions .
"This is why all kinds of Russophobic individuals and unscrupulous politicians are trying
to attack Russian history, to promote the ideas of revising the results of World War II and
to exonerate Nazi criminals." [My Emphasis]
"Very soon, we will be celebrating 20 years of our core bilateral document, the Treaty of
Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation. Since the signing of this treaty, Russia
and China have achieved great success in strengthening our multidimensional cooperation and
mutual trust across all areas without exception: politics, international affairs, trade and
the economy, cultural and humanitarian exchanges. It can be said that Russia-China relations
have reached their highest level in history."
And those relations will certainly reach much greater heights regardless the nature of
Russian-EU relations.
I'm puzzled by b's arithmetic on the gas flow rates
Apart from Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, there are also old Soviet pipelines that go
through Belarus and Ukraine, as well as the recently completed Turk Stream, part of which is
used to export gas to Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia (and soon Hungary, Bosnia and
Austria).
@11
My two cents on that is that the old surface Power-structure of Germany has been crumbling
rapidly for around the last decade. Merkel has left the christian conservative party in
shambles and there's no one with enough gravitas around to fill the giant sized shoes she's
left vacant, same thing with the social democrats who've been in a freefall from 35% to now
barely 15% for the last 15 years. Environmentalism coated Neoliberalism seems to be the maxim
of the hour in the leftists and centrists spheres, and almost everyone, but foremost the
Green Party, is trying to ride that wave to the finish line. Don't expect peoples first
policies, climate change will dominate the election, and we'll likely be wrapped up in more
deindustrialization coupled with an ever more chaotic energy policy. If anything the average
persons cost of living in terms of rent, energy, food and transportation will continue to
rise, while jobs in traditional industry sectors will continue to fall off. I haven't heard a
coherent plan on how the German economy is supposed to work like 10 years from now, and there
likely is none, all I expect is more taxes and the possibility of plundering social security
trust funds to address whatever critical infrastructure issue will face us next.
@14
Green-Party was about to oust the Conservatives in a major federal state election. People got
really riled up by nuclear, especially since there already was an ongoing controversy around
long term waste storage. It was one of Merkels signature opportunistic moves that aimed to
size the moment in absence of long term planing. It didn't work btw, Greens still ousted
them, but once you make a big move like that there's not going back without losing face, but
it does seem like exiting nuclear proved to be a popular strategy with the electorate in the
long run. I'm sure that are more complex/intricate theories around, but I can't speak on
that
Thanks b. The Empire of the Deranged is in a steady downward slide. By its own hand,
through financial engineering (stock buy back schemes fueled by bailout's of bankrupt
corporations plus derivatives etc. etc.) Add to this, restrictions on the use of swift. The
US devalues its own currency. Other countries are not so interested in purchasing US debt to
offset rising US deficit. Include all of that with our foreign policymaking which angers even
our allies like Germany, as you point out with NS2. The Leaders think they can snap their
fingers and bring the world to heel. That ship sailed a long time ago. The multi-polar world
is a reality that the paper tiger struggles with. To Glen Greenwald's Brazil, US influence
evaporates should Lula get elected as the next President. The tiger is toothless Glen, no
need to give it more authority than it has.
With the US pressuring Germany to end NS-2 in favor of importing much more expensive
fracked US gas, we see that the US thinks there is nothing wrong with asking it's vassal
states to cut their own throats (forego steps to retain their economic competitiveness) to
please their patron. The idiocy of Cold War 2 is costing US allies a lot and seems inimical
to the very idea of US allies even regarding their own national interests. One would hope
this is leading to either a re-evaluation of these alliances or a revolt of the satraps.
thanks b... Agree that "the U.S. has no right, duty or whatever to interfere in regular
businesses between foreign partners." Every journalists needs to be making this key point.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Vladimir Putin in his Munich (2007) speech announced Russia's pivot away from the Dollar
Empire and unwillingness to be a vassal. The Dollar Empire challenged Russia through Georgia
in 2008. Obama & Clinton fooled Russia through their reset announcement and got a go
ahead to attack Libya. The relationship was calm in 2012. Obama fooled Medvedev by saying,
"he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues," after reelection, in
early 2012. However, Vladimir Putin was back in 2013 and the Dollar Empire realized it has
been outplayed. It moved aggressively after the two outside Russian military bases in Syria
and Ukraine. Russia captured Crimea in 2014, and Putin declared Russia's willingness to go to
war in Syria (2015). The Imperial Council
of the United States was surprised by Russia's move into Syria and wasn't ready for a
war. In the meantime, China was developing strong. Here comes Trump in 2017. It seems like
the Imperial Council and its Intelligence Community came with a new ploy to associate Trump
with Russia, so they can bully China and bend it over on trade. China stood up to Empire's
challenge and developed its independence plan! In the meantime Trump increased sanctions on
Russia using the Congress as a pretext while strengthening Ukraine. The sanctions on the Nord
Stream 2 brought halt to work in December 2019. Did Trump FOOL Putin/Russia by stating, "he
will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues," after reelection? The
reasoning behind this question is that Russia didn't start work on the pipeline until the
election was over in December 2020. One year wait to start work on the pipeline.
MISSING DIMENSIONS
Why isn't Greenwald speaking against the dollar monetary imperialism and enslavement? Very
rarely one come across a journalist that shines light on reality and exposes truth. It seems
like Empire's MSM and journalists are making a big deal of this minuscule Nord Stream 2
sanction waiving. Why? It is just propaganda and perception management to create distrust in
the China-Russia relationship? No one is mentioning Russia's redlines or its ability to
retaliate to additional sanctions. Andrei Martyanow gets it right!
Please analyze every geopolitical
development from the MONETARY lens too. Russia as part of its De-Dollarization plan is
offering energy deals in national currencies to win nations in Eurasia, including Japan. In
which currency is the U$A offering its LNG ? US$? Also, it seems like Russia's transit
payments to Ukraine are in the US$. In addition to providing an alternate route, the Nord
Stream 2 increases Russia's leverage with Ukraine. Imagine if those transit payments were in
Rubles to Ukraine, Russia's leverage will be immense.
China, Russia, Germany, Japan... (Non-$ Bloc) are standing up to dollar's monetary
imperialism, and seeking more trade in their respective national currencies. The EU and
Germany will pay for its energy in Euros and reduce threats to their economies. Why don't
journalists address the monetary or currency dimensions?
RUSSIAN SUCCESSES?
Successfully completing the Nord Stream 2 and supplying gas to Europe in Euros will be a huge
victory for Russia and Germany. It has yet to implement its agreements (Minsk, Astana,
JCPOA...). All its conflicts are frozen and unresolved. Please share agreements that Russia
has successfully delivered on in the 21st Century, particularly when the Dollar Empire is
involved. Will the Empire surprise Russia by attacking on multiple fronts?
To say that there is a shift in US geopolitical policies, is an understatement. In short,
IMO, Biden is going back to Obama's plan and his pivot to Asia. Therefore, it is China,
China, China. Nothing else matters that much right now.
1. Nordstream 2 settled"¦..check
2. Germany and Europeans happy"¦..check
3. Settling ME problems with going back to JCPOA, promoting KSA and Iran peace, pulling out
of Afghanistan (not ME)"¦..check
4. Putting Israel in its place (via a shift in media coverage and taking away support slowly
and congress expressions of outrage) "¦..check
5. Abstention form UN resolution punishing Israel"¦"¦.coming up
6. Taking Europeans to the South East China confrontation"¦..coming up
7. Prying away Iran and Russia away from China"¦"¦wishful thinking,
hopefully.
8. Ousting Netanyahoo"¦"¦coming up
Although, Biden is a zionist, Netanyahu and his antics are not convenient at this time and
Israel takes a back seat to grand chessboard strategy.
Greenwald's and b's commentaries are a bit of a sideshow, in my opinion. Best concentrate
on the outcome and the bigger picture instead of this he said she said.
What happened this year is that the winter was cold, gas storage in Europe was nearly
depleted, and Europe needed huge amounts of russian gas.
The other problem is that LNG is more expensive in Asia, causing LNG producers and
shippers to prefer the asian market.
There are many more issues as well - such as the hit on US producers by the Covid crisis,
Germany moving the carbon goal posts from 2050 to 2045, green energy problems this winter in
Germany, explosions on pipelines in Ukraine, and so on.
It is also true that Russia is readying Power of Siberia 2 and 3 pipelines to China, as
well as actively developing its own LNG exports.
The disputed claim by Greenwald is that, "Nord Stream 2... is designed to double Russian
sales capacity to an EU addicted to cheap Russian natural gas, producing massive revenue for
the Russian economy and giving Moscow greater leverage when dealing with its European
neighbors." This is very different from the statement that NS2 together with NS1 is twice the
capacity of NS1 on its own.
There are several, to my mind, wrongful assumptions in Greenwald's claim.
The first, that the EU wants to increase its purchases of Russian gas, but is prevented
from doing so solely due to the lack of infrastructure which, presumably, is operating at
full capacity. From this assumption, it then follows that Russia is expecting massive
revenues from an increase in transit capacity, since customers are already standing by.
Finally, as a result of supplying significantly more gas to Europe and earning substantially
more money from it, Moscow can be expected to take advantage of its position as an energy
supplier to pressure Europe over political matters.
While it's true that European gas-needs are growing, it's more of a long-term projected
development and not some energy crisis straining the current configuration. A more topical
and urgent crisis is the situation in Ukraine and the state of disrepair of the gas transit
infrastructure in that country, which not long ago accounted for 80% of Russian gas supplied
to Europe. IIRC, official estimates gave these pipelines a few short years before becoming
unusable without major repair efforts -- something like 5 years -- and coupled with the state
of the country itself, it's not impossible that the pipelines outlive the state.
If we, for the sake of argument, assume that Ukraine and/or the gas infrastructure on that
territory ceases to function tomorrow, halting all gas transits to Europe in the blink of an
eye, which isn't as far-fetched as you might think, the result would be an energy crisis.
Already, this crisis would not be of catastrophic proportions as it would have been a mere
decade ago, due to alternative transit routes established to lessen reliance on Ukrainian
pipelines. NS2 is designed to eliminate reliance on Ukrainian pipelines completely, if one
disregards various political commitments made by Russia on Europe's behalf to retain part of
its gas export through Ukraine, which I'm sure would fall to the wayside the moment European
capitals started going dark. Of course, cutting off transit states also has the added benefit
of making the gas cheaper and thus the contract becomes more lucrative, but that's more of a
bonus.
If we, for the sake of argument, assume that all the pipelines to Europe are working at
full capacity, and Europe desperately needs more gas -- say, 25 years from now when no new
green alternatives have presented themselves and no new pipelines have been built because the
war of sanctions continues -- there's always LNG, which Russia can supply at a competitive
price, and the port infrastructure for that is already available, provided the EU is willing
to resolve its energy problems collectively.
From this it follows that, no, Russia isn't expecting massive revenues to come flooding in
at the completion of NS2. They're presumably expecting massive revenues from new energy
projects in Asia, but they're at worst expecting to retain the current revenue in the
European market, and at best see it grow in connection with European economy. Certainly, they
wouldn't like to lose the European market, especially due to unpredictable incidents abroad
that are outside of their control, but Europe is arguably much more vulnerable and has more
to lose from such an eventuality.
Lastly, since we are no longer expecting an immediate increase in European reliance on
Russian energy following NS2, how does it translate to Russian leverage over European
politics? Russia is already Europe's main supplier of, not only gas, but crude oil which
accounts for 2/3 of Europe's energy supply (gas is 24%). If Russia wants to leverage its
position as the main energy supplier to Europe, it does not need NS2 to do so, and shutting
down NS2 will not prevent it from doing so.
It's Izvestia and it was in Russian, that's why I'm not able to recover it. It was also
machine translated, so I may well have gotten the wrong message.
But yeah, from what I understood, the spirit of the article was that it was just a matter
of time before Russia start to deliver LNG to Western and Northern Europe at much more
competitive prices than the American LNG, through the Arctic route (investment in
icebreakers, gas pipelines, oil pipelines, nuclear reactors etc. etc.).
"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from
the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are
beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our
destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader
with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." -- Menachem
Begin (Israeli Prime Minister, 1977-1983)
"... A draft report published online by the assembly's Committee on Foreign Affairs caused consternation in Russian media on Monday, after statements came to light that argued the bloc "should establish with the US a transatlantic alliance to defend democracy globally" and "deter Russia" from supposed aggression in Eastern Europe. ..."
A draft report published
online by the assembly's Committee on Foreign Affairs caused consternation in Russian media on Monday, after statements came
to light that argued the bloc "should establish with the US a transatlantic alliance to defend democracy globally" and "deter
Russia" from supposed aggression in Eastern Europe.
As part of its "vision" for future ties with Moscow, the paper concludes that the EU should put forward a number of incentives
designed to persuade Russians that a turn to the West would be beneficial, including visa liberalization and "free trade investment."
[...]
At the same time, the committee puts forward a number of extreme steps that it says the bloc should take. It insists that
Brussels "must be prepared not to recognize the parliament of Russia and to ask for Russia's suspension from international
organizations with parliamentary assemblies if the 2021 parliamentary elections in Russia are recognized as fraudulent."
The success or failure of this operation will depend entirely on the Russian people. Will it fall for the Western European
honey trap once again?
After Putin is gone, bets are off. Also, the EU continues to suffer from refugee waves from Syria and Libya, and its economy
continues to deteriorate (recession confirmed for Q1 2021). The whole system is so exhausted that they don't talk about even of
the absorption of Moldova anymore (the Moldovan president had to bring that up to the Kremlin; good they remembered them).
This looks like Biden had some surge of sanity, but it's not: I read an article on Izvestia some days ago and it seems Russia
won the war for the Arctic and has expelled the USA from that sea. That, combined with the fact that Russia has been ramping up
investment on the sector, results in the fact that, soon enough, Russia will also have the infrastructure to deliver cheaper LNG
by ship to Europe, too.
That means the USA has given up on the NordStream II in order to hurt the Russian LNG investments. Yes, people, that's the
insanity of the situation: the USG is completely lost. It still has its ace in the hole, though: the Green Party is set to win
the next German general elections, and they're rabid Atlanticists. Like, this would cost Germany dearly and they wouldn't last
two years in government, but at least Russian gas to Europe through a non-Ukrainian route would be stopped.
Speaking of the Ukraine, this whole situation makes us reflect: it is patent at this point in time that the EU is a subsidiary
of NATO - it expands eastwards after those countries become NATO members. They're the "socioeconomic" version of NATO. This has
created a huge problem for the EU, though, because the Ukraine is a massive financial black hole to the American economy (through
the IMF) and the USA is pressuring the EU to make it a member quick, so that this black hole goes to European (i.e. German) hands.
The thing is Germany obviously doesn't want that, because it needs the Euro to keep at where it is or stronger (you can only enter
the EU by entering the EZ nowadays). The Ukraine is salivating to become an EZ member - that's the whole point of the Maidan coup
in the first place - so Ukraine entering the EU without entering the EZ is out of the table. The EU must've told the USA that
no, the Ukraine must first become a NATO member, then they'll make it an EZ-EU member. The Ukraine is the proverbial hot potato.
All of that coupled with the hard economic fact that, without the Russian gas transit exclusivity, you can't leverage Ukraine's
debt, because, after Maidan, all of the public goods and infrastructure were privatized to American capitalists. That means we
have the absurd situation where Germany has to give up cheaper gas for itself (which would be essential for its economic recovery)
in order to make the Ukraine happy so that it enters the EU, so that it becomes a financial black hole... to the German economy!
Germany has to pay the Ukraine for the privilege of having to pay it even more, for eternity.
The price of nation-building has become more and more expensive to the capitalist world. Turns out those Third World shitholes
have learned something after all those decades.
Taiwan is also suffering from a significant brain drain to the Mainland. They're trying to solve the problem by demonizing
those people by calling them "traitors".
> In a recent book, Luke Harding, an investigative reporter at The Guardian, described how Mr. Steele had dispatched his "collector"
to surreptitiously approach a real estate broker, Sergei Millian, who was a peripheral figure in the Trump/Russia saga. "Millian
spoke at length and privately to this person, believing him or her to be trustworthy "" a kindred soul," Mr. Harding wrote.
But the trouble for Mr. Harding, who is close to both Mr. Steele and Mr. Simpson, was that he wrote those lines before the
release of the F.B.I. interview of Mr. Danchenko.
In the interview, the collector said that he and Mr. Millian might have spoken briefly over the phone, but that the two
had never met.
Mr. Harding did not respond to requests for comment. <
Here are Ten Things We Have Learned During the Covid Coup.
1. Our political system is hopelessly corrupt. Virtually all politicians are hopelessly corrupt. No political party
can be trusted. They all can be, and have been, bought.
2. Democracy is a sham. It has been a sham for a very long time. There will never be any real democracy when money and
power amount to the same thing.
3. The system will stop at nothing to hold on to its power and, if possible, increase its levels of control and exploitation.
It has no scruples. No lie is too outrageous, no hypocrisy too nauseating, no human sacrifice too great.
4. So-called radical movements are usually nothing of the sort. From whatever direction they claim to attack the system,
they are just pretending to do so, and serve to channel discontent in directions which are harmless to the power clique and even
useful to its agendas.
5. Any "dissident" voice you have ever heard of through corporate media is probably a fake. The system does not hand
out free publicity to its actual enemies.
6. Most people in our society are cowards. They will jettison all the fine values and principles which they have been
loudly boasting about all their lives merely to avoid the slightest chance of public criticism, inconvenience or even minor financial
loss.
7. The mainstream media is nothing but a propaganda machine for the system... ...and those journalists who work for
it have sold their sorry souls, placing their (often minimal) writing skills entirely at the disposition of Power.
8. Police are not servants of the public... ...but servants of a powerful and extremely wealthy minority which seeks
to control and exploit the public for its own narrow and greedy interests.
9. Scientists cannot be trusted. They will use the hypnotic power of their white coats and authoritative status for
the benefit of whoever funds their work and lifestyle. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
10. Progress is a misleading illusion. The "progress" of increasing automation and industrialisation does not go hand
in hand with a progress in the quality of human life, but in fact will "progressively" reduce it to the point of complete extinction.
Irrelevant how much the Western peoples hate China. China is not Iran, Afghanistan, Russia or some other random Third World
country, it is above the pay grade of Western public opinion.
However, it is true China is not up to the level achieved by the Soviet Union. It still has a military disproportionately weak
compared to its economic might. That problem will still take some three or more decades to solve, but it is being worked on.
This headline by the NYT (in the upper right corner of the Home Page) reflects the West's frustration with Israel. In the first
part, they try to tell the reader that the Israeli are waging a war of equals, and not genociding, the Palestinians (and that
the USA has nothing to do with it). In the second part, it laments the bad timing by the Israelis, who interrupted their propaganda
warfare operation against China on the "Uighur genocide" campaign.
It urges Israel to clean the mess as quick as possible in order for the anti-China propaganda campaign to resume.
In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the above statement is literal, as the USA has, so far, exported zero - I repeat, zero
(not rounding down) - vaccines so far.
Meanwhile, China has already exported 250 million doses and counting (last time I checked, a week ago) - more than the entire
Indian production (India had just exported some 60 million doses).
The inner contradictions of capitalism in plain sight.
On the one side, you have to give people money so they can keep themselves quarantined. On the other side, capitalism requires
people to keep working or to keep searching for work in order to pull down wages, thus increasing the rate of surplus value. That's
why conservatives are usually in favor of the Christian charity, that gives only food and shelter, but not cash, to the unemployed,
but not of wage raises and unemployment benefits - the fact that you're paid in cash and not in kind makes all the difference
in the world in the capitalist system.
Unemployment benefits only help capitalism is it is low enough just to keep one physically alive and in constant search for
jobs. That way, he/she incorporates the industrial reserve army, which brings wages down. The problem with the USA is that wages
were already so low before the pandemic that those USD 600.00 checks made 35% (!!) of its recently unemployed recipients richer
than when they were employed. Logically, those 35% don't want to go back to work, as their lives are objectively better now than
they were before the pandemic, and that's why the Republican congressmen and senators are pressuring Biden (as they pressured
Trump) to outright extinguish those checks.
P.S.: the top rated commentary in the article ("Great generations of Americans came here 100 years ago...") by the time I typed
this is hilarious, shows the delusion of the average American towards their own system almost perfectly. The other comments are
also very funny. The narrative that "there are a lot of jobs available, but no one is skilled enough/wants it" is used by the
capitalists every time there's an economic crisis, just search your favorite newspaper for the years of 1980-1982, 1975 etc. etc.
and you'll see the same bullshit being preached over and over again.
Talks about apartheid as the only possible synthesis between a Jewish theocratic state and a liberal bourgeois state, which
I mentioned in the past two threads about the subject.
As I said before, the system is unstable and is doomed to fail. Either Israel abandons its Zionist project and gives up the
idea of being an 100% Jewish state and thus becomes a liberal bourgeois state or it will continue to wither and degenerate until
it falls to a civil war.
It would've been the first if not for a providential last grasp effort by NASA, who used the resources it had and didn't have
to pull that off, by a few months.
The tendency, however is clear. NASA will soon cease to exist as we know it and essentially become the State façade of SpaceX.
The USA's space program will then be entirely dependent on the genius of Elon Musk.
--//--
Cuban vaccines (Abdala and Soberana 02) continue advancing on their trials:
If you had read and understood the Mars 3 link I provided you would have learned that it wasn't a rover either. Which the first
rover was has already been told. End of story.
Posted by: Norwegian | May 16 2021 18:37 utc | 37
Yes, but no. Mars 3 actually had a rover on board, PROP-M. To quote Wikipedia:
"The Mars 3 lander, a so called Passability Estimating Vehicle for Mars, was designed and manufactured in Mobile Vehicle Engineering
Institute by a team of approximately 150 engineers, led by Alexander Kemurdzhian. The vehicle had a small 'Mars rover' on board,
which was planned to move across the surface on skis while connected to the lander with a 15-meter umbilical cable. Two small
metal rods were used for autonomous obstacle avoidance, as radio signals from Earth would take too long to drive the rovers using
remote control. The rover carried a dynamic penetrometer and a gamma ray densitometer."
... although it seems it never was deployed because of the communication failure, so it cannot count as the first rover to
function on Mars.
Probably it was not a false flag. First of all the state of IT security at Colonial Pipeline
was so dismal that it was strange that this did not happened before. And there might be
some truth that they try to exploit this hack to thier advantage as maintenance of the
pipeline is also is dismal shape.
Notable quotes:
"... "As for the money-nobody really knows where it really went." If you are right about the perpetrators, my guess would be that it went into the black-ops fund, two birds one stone. ..."
"... I have become so used to false flags, I am going to be shocked when a real intrusion happens! ..."
"... an in depth article researching solarwinds hack - looks like it was Israel, not a great leap to see that colonial was a false flag https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/01/investigative-reports/another-mega-group-spy-scandal-samanage-sabotage-and-the-solarwinds-hack/ ..."
"... Regarding the ownership of Colonial Pipeline: 'IFM Investors, which is owned by 27 Australian union- and employer-backed industry superannuation funds, owns a 16 per cent stake in Colonial Pipeline, which the infrastructure manager bought in 2007 for $US651 million.' ..."
"... 'The privately held Colonial Pipeline is valued at about $US8 billion, based upon the most recent sale of a 10 per cent stake to a unit of Royal Dutch Shell in 2019.' ..."
The Colonial Pipeline Co.,ransomware attack was a false flag. They wanted to blame Russian
hackers so they could derail Nordstream II
It is common knowledge that the only real hackers that are able of such sabotage is CIA
and Israeli. It's the same attack types they do to Iranian infrastructure on a regular
basis.
The Russians are not that stupid to do something they know will be blamed on them and is
of no political use to them. And could derail Nordstream2.
As for the money-nobody really knows where it really went. CEO is ultra corrupt. They
never ever invested in their infrastructure so when it went down they came up with a
profitable excuse. Just look at their financials/balance sheet over the years. No real
investment in updating and maintaining infrastructure. Great false flag. Corruption and
profiteering.
"As for the money-nobody really knows where it really went." If you are right
about the perpetrators, my guess would be that it went into the black-ops fund, two birds one
stone.
I'm not familiar with your handle - hello. IMO, it would be counterproductive for Russia
to initiate such a hack. What really affects and debilitates US oil and gas interests is low
prices, both at the pump and on the stock exchange. The hack helped jack up prices (which
were already being jacked-up despite demand still lagging behind supply) which only HELPS
those energy interests. It has long been known, the math isn't complicated, what level crude
must trade at for US domestic oil & gas operations to be profitable. Remember that just
as the pandemic was emerging Russia and Saudi Arabia once again sent the global crude market
into the depths of despair.
I do agree the hack can be interpreted in light of the desperation of US energy interests
to try to kill NS2. I have not yet read the recent articles discussing Biden's recent moves
in that regard. If these moves are a recognition that US LNG to Europe (and elsewhere) are
diametrically opposed to climate responsibility, I'd welcome those moves. As is usually the
case though, environmental responsibility is probably the least likely reason.
Regarding the ownership of Colonial Pipeline: 'IFM Investors, which is owned by 27
Australian union- and employer-backed industry superannuation funds, owns a 16 per cent stake
in Colonial Pipeline, which the infrastructure manager bought in 2007 for $US651
million.'
also
'The privately held Colonial Pipeline is valued at about $US8 billion, based upon the
most recent sale of a 10 per cent stake to a unit of Royal Dutch Shell in 2019.'
. . . which has caused some GOP leaders to fear alienating female Republican voters, particularly educated suburbanites
who will be key votes in the 2022 elections.
When I first met my wife, she told me women shouldn't have the right to vote. It was instant love.
A Girl In Flyover Country 59 minutes ago
[in case of Cheney] The war monger doesn't fall far from the tree.
Rise21 42 minutes ago remove link
Amazing how the liberal news outlets are now supporting a Cheney. But they know more war equals more rating
yochananmichael 51 seconds ago
its time for the republicans to rid itself of chicken hawk warmongers like Cheney.
He father disbanded there Iraqi Army which was supposed to provide security, causing an insurgency and 5000 dead American boys
and countless maimed.
vic and blood PREMIUM 4 minutes ago
Cheney's benefactors have erected massive billboards all over the state, 'thanking her for defending the Constitution.'
She has an incredible war chest, and sadly, money and advertising decides a lot of elections.
Strange news of the fatherland... knowing what is going on in Germany right now is helpful
to understanding the strange goings on in the USAi and its dreams of eternal empire. It ain't
clear sailing yet for NS2!
If your country is part of an international empire, the domestic politics of the country
that rules yours are your domestic politics too. Whoever speaks of the Europe of the EU
must therefore also speak of Germany. Currently it is widely believed that after the German
federal elections of 24 September this year, Europe will enter a post-Merkel era. The truth
is not so simple.
In October 2018, following two devastating defeats in state elections in Hesse and
Bavaria, Angela Merkel resigned as president of her party, the CDU, and announced that she
would not seek re-election as Chancellor in 2021. She would, however, serve out her fourth
term, to which she had been officially appointed only seven months earlier.
Putting together a coalition government had taken no less than six months following the
September 2017 federal election, in which the CDU and its Bavarian sidekick, the CSU, had
scored the worst result in their history, at 32.9 percent (2013: 41.5 percent). (Merkel's
record as party leader is nothing short of dismal, having lost votes each time she ran. How
she could nevertheless remain Chancellor for 16 years will have to be explained elsewhere.)
In the subsequent contest for the CDU presidency, the party's general secretary, Annegret
Kramp-Karrenbauer, appointed by Merkel only in February 2018, narrowly prevailed over two
competitors.
After little more than a year, however, when Merkel publicly dressed her down for a lack
of leadership, Kramp-Karrenbauer resigned and declared that she would not run for
Chancellor in 2021 either. A few months later, when von der Leyen went to Brussels,
Kramp-Karrenbauer got Merkel to appoint her minister of defense. The next contest for the
party presidency, the second in Merkel's fourth term, had to take place under Corona
restrictions; it took a long time and was won in January 2021 by Armin Laschet, Prime
Minister of the largest federal state, North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW). To prevent the
comeback of an old foe of hers, Friedrich Merz, Merkel allegedly supported Laschet behind
the scenes.
While Laschet – a less-than-charismatic Christian-Democratic middle-of-the-roader
and lifelong Merkel loyalist – considered the party presidency to be a ticket to the
CDU/CSU candidacy for Chancellor, it took three months for this to be settled. As CDU/CSU
politics go, the joint candidate is picked by the two party presidents when they feel the
time has come, under four eyes; no formal procedure provided.
Thus Laschet needed the agreement of Markus Söder, Prime Minister of Bavaria, who
didn't keep it a secret that he believed himself the far better choice. In the background,
again, there was Merkel, in the unprecedented position of a sitting Chancellor watching the
presidents of her two parties pick her would-be successor in something like a semi-public
cock-fight. After some dramatic toing-and-froing, Laschet prevailed, once more supported by
Merkel, apparently in exchange for his state's backing for the federal government imposing
a 'hard' Covid-19 lockdown on the entire country...
...There will also be differences on the Eastern flank of the EU, where Baerbock,
following the United States, will support Ukrainian accession to NATO and the EU, and
finance EU extension in the West Balkans. That she will also cancel North Stream 2 will
be a point of contention in a Baerbock/Scholz government.
Laschet will be more inclined towards France and seek some accommodation with Russia, on
trade as well as security; he will also hesitate to be too strongly identified with the US
on Eastern Europe and Ukraine. But then, he will be reminded by his Foreign Minister,
Baerbock, as well as his own party that Germany's national security depends on the American
nuclear umbrella, which the French cannot and in any case will not replace. (my
emphasis)
France is was denying any discomfort with Zionism for 52 years. but since yesterday
effect of
Plate tectonics are perceptible.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian warned on Sunday of the risk of
"long-lasting apartheid" in Israel. The veteran politician [and high rank French official
for 40 years with solid connection to French weapons trade] made the remarks in an interview
with LCI TV NewsChannel, RTL radio and Le Figaro newspaper [ three major MSM]
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian warned on Sunday of the risk of "long-lasting
apartheid" in Israel in the event the Palestinians fail to obtain their own state. Le Drian is one of the first senior French officials to use the term "apartheid" in
reference to Israel , which has angrily denied any policy of racial discrimination.
The veteran politician made the remarks in an interview with RTL radio and Le Figaro
newspaper in reference to the clashes between Jews and Arabs that erupted in several
Israeli cities during the latest conflict.
The violence, which revealed simmering anger among Israeli Arabs over the crackdown on
Palestinians in Jerusalem, shattered years of peaceful coexistence within Israel. "It's the first time and it clearly shows that if in the future we had a solution other
than the two-state solution, we would have the ingredients of long-lasting apartheid,"
Le Drian said, using the word for the white supremacist oppression of blacks in South
Africa from 1948 to 1991.
Le Drian said the "risk of apartheid is high" if Israel continued to act "according to a
single-state logic" but also if it maintained the status quo.
"Even the status quo produces that," he said.
He added that the 11-day conflict between Hamas and Israel had shown the need to revive the
moribund Middle East peace process. https://guardian.ng/news/france-sees-risk-of-apartheid-in-israel-paris-france/
"We have take one step at a time," he said, expressing satisfaction that US President Joe
Biden had reiterated support for creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Israel's latest offensive against Hamas killed 248 people in the Gaza Strip, including 66
children, and wounded over 1,900, the Hamas-run health ministry said.
Meanwhile, rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups into Israel killed 12 and wounded
around 357 others, Israeli police said.
@120 m - "Iron Dome system according to Israeli sources..."
The point is not the numbers taken from the sales brochure of the system. The point is,
what does the penetration of the fantasy shield do to the Israeli psyche?
Israel initiated the ceasefire, without conditions. After 11 days, it could take no
more.
Israel has failed to protect itself from the indigenous population that it was oppressing.
Palestine has won a victory that changes the game and changes the world.
The entire regional Resistance now knows that Palestine alone can hold the enemy in check.
And all the Palestinians everywhere are completely united with only the Resistance as their
leader.
Over at the Saker just now, a speech from Hezbollah acknowledges proudly that Palestine
itself is now the leading edge of the struggle to remove Israel from the Middle East, and
that Hezbollah yearns for the day when it joins side by side with the Palestinians to drive
the oppressor from the land.
Palestine as it says could keep up this barrage against Israel for six months - just
Palestine alone. And the damage from such a thing would not be measured in how few or how
many individual persons were killed by those rockets. The damage would be measured by the
scream of madness and defeat from the Zionist oppressor, thrown down by the indigenous
populace and cast out of the land in abject fear.
As barflies can see, There may be an undefined 'ceasefire' but the 100 year old ethnic
cleansing project in the rest of Palestine continues:
Israel's Daily Toll on Palestinian Life, Limb, Liberty and Land
(Compiled by Leslie Bravery, Palestine Human Rights Campaign, Auckland, New Zealand)
18 May 2021 {Main source of statistics: Palestinian Monitoring Group (PMG): http://www.nad.ps/ NB:The period covered by this
newsletter is taken from the PMG's 24-hour sitrep ending 8am the day after the above
date.}
We shall always do our best to verify the accuracy of all items in these IOP
newsletters/reports wherever possible [e.g. we often suspect that names of people and places
that we see in the PMG sitreps could be typos; also frequently the translation into English
seems rather odd ~ but as we do not speak Arabic, we have no alternative but to copy and
paste these names from the PMG sitreps!] – please forgive us for any errors or
omissions – Leslie and Marian.
206 projectiles
launched from Gaza
82 air strikes (157)
Very many
Israeli attacks
158 Israeli
ceasefire violations
21 raids including
home invasions
11 killed – 261 injured
Economic sabotage
43 taken prisoner
Night peace disruption
and/or home invasions
in 6 towns and villages
Home invasions: 09:20, Nazlet al-Sheikh Zaid - 09:20, al-Arqa - 04:00, Anabta - 03:30, Madama
- 03:30, Tel.
Peace disruption raids: 14:40, Beitunya - 16:05, Um Safa village - 03:20, Bir Zeit - dawn,
Bil'in - 17:40, Tura village - 18:55, Ya'bad - 19:45, Zububa - 06:30, Tubas - 18:05, Quffin -
04:00, Tulkarem - 20:00, Aqraba - 13:45, al-Azza UN refugee camp - 13:45, Aida UN refugee
camp - 18:10, al-Khadr - 18:10, Janata - 20:15, Tuqu - 03:00, al-Ubeidiya - dawn, Husan -
dawn, al-Ubeidiya.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Gaza enclave: From 07:00 until
07:00 the following day 206 projectiles were launched towards the Green Line from Northern
Gaza, Gaza City, Central Gaza and Khan Yunis.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Gaza enclave: From 07:00 until
07:00 the following day, 206 projectiles were launched towards the Green Line from Northern
Gaza, Gaza City, Central Gaza and Khan Yunis.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Northern Gaza – 53
projectiles launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Gaza – 81 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Central Gaza – 17 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Khan Yunis – 38 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Khan Yunis – 17 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Gaza enclave – from 07:00 until 07:00 the
following day, Israeli warplanes carried out 82 air strikes, launching 157 missiles onto
Gaza. There were 7 killed, 50 injured, 35 homes destroyed and much damage caused.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Northern Gaza – Israeli warplanes launched 21
air strikes – 35 missiles: 16 injured and 10 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Gaza – Israeli warplanes launched 17 air
strikes – 27 missiles: 6 killed (including a child), 15 injured (including women and
children) and 7 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Central Gaza – Israeli warplanes launched 14
air strikes – 20 missiles: 11injured and 6 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Khan Yunis – Israeli warplanes launched 13
air strikes – 46 missiles: 1 killed, 14 injured and 10 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Rafah – Israeli warplanes launched 17 air
strikes – 29 missiles. 3 injured and 2 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – Israeli attacks: Gaza enclave: From 07:00 until 07:00 the
following day, the Israeli Army and Navy pounded Central Gaza, Khan Yunis and Rafah.
Israeli Army attacks – 18 wounded: Jerusalem – Israeli Occupation forces opened
fire, with live ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters on
protesters in Shuafat, al-Zaim, al-Jib, Beit Ijza, Qalandiya, near the villages of Qatanna
and al-Issawiya, as well as in Abu Dis, al-Eizariya and at the entrances to Hizma,
al-Sawahrah al-Sharqiya, Anata, the al-Ram road junction, Bab al-Amoud area and al-Wad Street
in Jerusalem Old City. 18 protesters were wounded.
Israeli Army attack: Jerusalem – 18:00, Israeli Occupation forces opened fire on
Palestinian motor vehicles in the Sheikh Radwan neighbourhood.
Israeli Army attacks – 3 killed – 72 wounded: Ramallah – Israeli forces in
or near al-Bireh, Sinjil, Aboud, Ni'lin, al-Mughayer, Deir Jarir, Kafr Malik, Nabi Salih, Ein
Qiniya, Ras Karkar, Kharbatha Bani Harith, Beit Sira, al-Jalazoun refugee camp, fired live
ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters,
killing 3 people, Muhammad Mahmoud Hamid (24), Adham Fayez Al-Kashef (20) and Islam Wael
Fahmy Barnat, and wounding 72. There were many tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 4 wounded: Jenin – Israeli troops, manning the Jalamah and
Dotan checkpoints and at the southern entrance to Silat al-Dahr, fired live ammunition,
rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 4
people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 7 wounded: Tulkarem – Israeli forces, manning the Einav
checkpoint and troops in Tulkarem, Quffin, Zit and at the entrance to Beit Lid, fired live
ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters,
wounding 7 and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 8 wounded: Qalqiliya – Israeli Occupation forces, at the
entrances to Azun, Hajjah, and Kafr Qaddum as well as near Jayus, Hablat and at the Eyal
crossing, fired live ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters
towards protesters, wounding 8 people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 33 wounded: Nablus – Israeli Army positions, near the
Huwara checkpoint, the intersection of Osirin and Sarra villages and near the entrances to
Qusra, Beta, Jama'in, Naqoura, Deir Sharaf, Burin, Madama, Asirah al-Qibliya, Yutma,
al-Labban al-Sharqiya, Odla, al-Sawiyah and the village of Tal, fired live ammunition,
rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 33
people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks: Salfit – Israeli troops, near the entrances to Deir Istiya,
Qarawat Bani Hassan, al-Zawiya and the northern entrance to Salfit, fired live ammunition,
rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters. There were
several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 18 wounded: Bethlehem – Israeli forces, present at Bilal
Bin Rabah Mosque, the Aida refugee camp, northern entrance to Tuqu', western entrance to Beit
Fajar, Um Rakba area of al-Khadr and entrance to Husan, fired live ammunition, rubber-coated
bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 18 people and
causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 1 killed: Hebron – morning, Israeli Occupation forces,
positioned in the Old City, opened fire on and killed a resident: Islam Fayyad Zahida
(32).
Israeli Army attacks – 30 wounded: Hebron – the Israeli Army, positioned in the
Bab al-Zawiya area of Hebron and in the Old City, as well as near the entrances to Beit
Ummar, Bani Naim, Tarqumiya, Khurasa village, the al-Aroub refugee camp and on Halhul Bridge,
fired live ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards
protesters, wounding 30 people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Economic sabotage: Gaza -- the Israeli Navy continues to enforce an arbitrary fishing
limit.
Home invasion: Jenin – 09:20, Israeli Occupation forces raided the villages of Nazlet
al-Sheikh Zaid and al-Arqa, and invaded a house.
Home invasion – boy (aged 15) abducted : Tulkarem – 04:00, Israeli troops raided
Anabta and abducted 15-year-old Muhammad Salam Wajih Rasheed.
Home invasions: Nablus – 03:30, Israeli forces raided Madama and Tel villages and
invaded a number of homes.
Israeli police and settlers' mosque violation: 23:00, Israeli Occupation police invaded the
courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, filming the Mosque and its facilities.
Israeli Army – 7 wounded – rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas
canisters: Tubas – Israeli Occupation forces, manning the Tayasir checkpoint and in the
village of Atouf, fired rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards
protesters, wounding 7 people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army – 5 wounded – rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas
canisters: Jericho – Israeli forces, at the northern and southern entrances to Jericho,
as well as outside the Aqbat Jaber refugee camp, fired rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades
and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 5 people and causing several tear gas
casualties.
Occupation settler violence: Jerusalem – 18:00, Israeli settlers stoned a family home,
on the outskirts of the village of Beit Ijza.
Occupation road casualties: Bethlehem – 16:40, an Israeli settler drove his motor
vehicle over and hospitalised a 19-year-old Abdullah Saqr Saad, near Khalet Iskarya.
Raid: Ramallah – 14:40, Israeli Occupation forces raided and patrolled Beitunya.
Raid: Ramallah – 16:05, Israeli forces raided and patrolled Um Safa village.
Raid – 1 taken prisoner: Ramallah – 03:20, Israeli troops raided Bir Zeit, taking
prisoner one person.
Raid – 1 taken prisoner: Ramallah – dawn, the Israeli Army raided Bil'in village,
taking prisoner one person.
Raid: Jenin – 17:40, Israeli troops raided and patrolled Tura village.
Raid: Jenin – 18:55, Israeli soldiers raided and patrolled Ya'bad.
Raid: Jenin – 19:45, Israeli Occupation forces raided and patrolled Zububa village.
Raid: Tubas – 06:30, Israeli forces raided and patrolled Tubas.
Raid: Tulkarem – 18:05, the Israeli Army raided and patrolled Quffin.
Raid: Tulkarem – 04:0 Israeli troops raided Tulkarem.
Raid: Nablus – 20:00, Israeli soldiers raided and patrolled Aqraba.
Raid – UN refugee camps: Bethlehem – 13:45, Israeli Occupation forces raided and
patrolled the al-Azza and Aida UN refugee camps in Bethlehem.
Raid: Bethlehem – 18:10, Israeli forces raided and patrolled al-Khadr and Janata.
Raid – 2 abductions: Bethlehem – 20:15, Israeli troops raided Tuqu and abducted
two 16-year-old youths: Muhammad Khaled Nasrallah and Sind Talal Al-Amor.
Raid: Bethlehem – 03:00, Israeli soldiers raided and patrolled al-Ubeidiya.
Raid – 2 taken prisoner: Bethlehem – dawn, the Israeli Army raided Husan village,
taking prisoner two people.
Raid – 2 taken prisoner: Bethlehem – dawn, Israeli Occupation forces raided
al-Ubeidiya, taking prisoner twopeople.
Restrictions of movement (14): 11:30, entrance to Turmusaya- 11:20, tightened procedures at
Huwara - 12:00, tightened procedures at Kifl Haris - 12:50, entrance to al-Zawiya -
11:25-12:30, al-Nashash road junction - 14:10, entrance to al-Walaja village - midnight,
entrance to Marah Mualla - 09:15, entrance to the Fahs area, south of Hebron - 18:45,
entrance to Sa'ir - Beit Hanoun (Erez) crossing closed - al-Mantar-Karni crossing closed -
al-Shujaiyeh crossing (Nahal Oz) closed - Sufa crossing closed - al-Awda Port closed.
[NB: Times indicated in Bold Type contribute to the sleep deprivation suffered by Palestinian
children]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If any of our subscribers should like to reproduce complete, in full and unedited, these In
Occupied Palestine daily newsletters that would be very welcome!
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please let us know and if you have friends or
family who would like to receive them ask them to contact us at sumud1@outlook.com
...
@ Paul, "100 year old ethnic cleansing project in the rest of Palestine continues",
but Tectonic plates still moving, collapse of an edifice of complacency
David Horovitz is the founding editor of The Times of Israel. He previously edited The
Jerusalem Post (2004-2011) and The Jerusalem Report (1998-2004).
"It doesn't matter that Hamas is a repressive, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamist terrorist
organization that fires thousands of rockets indiscriminately at innocent civilians all
over the State of Israel...
[...]
It doesn't matter...
[...]
Again, it doesn't matter, because we are no longer avowedly seeking, even in principle, a
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- the currently and foreseeably
insoluble Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And since we no longer avowedly aspire to be part
of the solution, we are increasingly perceived as part of the problem, as
rejectionists.
[...]
Israel still has plenty of friends, and plenty of support, including crucially in the US.
Three EU foreign ministers chose to make a solidarity visit to bombed Israeli homes at the
height of the conflict. But the ground is shifting dangerously.
Many of us, this writer emphatically included, regard a two-state solution as essential
if we are not to lose either our Jewish majority, or our democracy, or both, forever
entangled among millions of hostile Palestinians. Many of us, this writer emphatically
included, cannot currently see a safe route to such an accommodation.
For the last time, it doesn't matter. So long as Israel does not place itself firmly and
distinctly on the side of those seeking a viable framework for long-term peace and security
for ourselves and for the Palestinians, we will be regarded as blocking that framework. And
even when facing an enemy so patently cynical, amoral and intransigent as Hamas, militarily
strong Israel will be held responsible for the loss of life on both sides of the
conflict. We may keep on winning the battles, though they will get harder if fighting spreads to
and deepens on other fronts. But we will be gradually losing the war.
Space.com reports: Because no one was certain how weightlessness would affect a pilot,
the spherical capsule had little in the way of onboard
controls ; the work was done either automatically or from the ground. If an emergency
arose, Gagarin was supposed to receive an override code that would allow him to take manual
control, but Sergei Korolev, chief designer of the Soviet space program, disregarded protocol
and gave the code to the pilot prior to the flight.
Over the course of 108 minutes, Vostok 1 traveled around the Earth once, reaching a
maximum height of 203 miles (327 kilometers). The spacecraft carried 10 days' worth of
provisions in case the engines failed and Gagarin was required to wait for the orbit to
naturally decay. But the supplies were unnecessary. Gagarin re-entered Earth's atmosphere,
managing to maintain consciousness as he experienced forces up to eight times the pull of
gravity during his descent.
The BBC remembers how on his return to earth, Gagarin parachuted into some farmland several
hundred miles from Moscow â€" "much to the surprise of a five-year-old girl who was
out in the fields planting potatoes."
The BBC also published a look at
Gagarin's global fame in the years that followed â€" and Phys.org notes that
even today, there are few people more
universally admired in Russia than Yuri Gagarin : His smiling face adorns murals across
the country. He stands, arms at his sides as if zooming into space, on a pedestal 42.5 metres
(140 feet) above the traffic flowing on Moscow's Leninsky Avenue. He is even a favourite
subject of tattoos... The anniversary of Gagarin's historic flight on April 12, 1961
â€" celebrated every year in Russia as Cosmonautics Day â€" sees Russians
of all ages lay flowers at monuments to his accomplishment across the country...
Gagarin, says historian Alexander Zheleznyakov, was a figure who helped fuel the
imagination. "He transformed us from a simple biological species to one that could imagine an
entire universe beyond Earth."
Several previous studies have examined the risks across generations of radiation exposure
from events such as this, but have yielded inconclusive results. In this study, the
investigators analyzed the genomes
of 130 children and parents from families where one or both parents were exposed to
radiation due to the Chernobyl accident, and where children were conceived afterward and born
between 1987 and 2002.
There was no increase in gene changes in reproductive cells of study participants, and
rates of new germline mutations were similar to those in the general population, according to a
team led by Meredith Yeager of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, in Rockville,
Md.
*** Please Note: Russia is not weak considering that it has the ability to nuke America in
to ashes within 30 minutes, or any other bunch of idiots that chooses to step over her red
lines. Okay the US has 350 million people compared to 150 million Russians, but the US is
irrevocably divided and Russia is fully united even the Muslim minority is united with the
State in Russia. A divided house can not stand no man can serve two masters. On top of that
the US has no moral values whereas Russia is a Christian country where marriage is between a
man and a woman, by State law. Biden can fly all the queer flags he likes but he still leads
a divided nation with a corrupt State comprised of dual passport holders, amoral materialists
and deluded mentally challenged idiots like Waters and Pelosi.
Ditto. I am sure the CIA will be grinding the generals as we speak. Even the letter in
Politico could well be one of their strategies. I posted a piece in the open thread yesterday
from The HILL that was
pure propaganda.
USA is not alone in losing guerrilla warfare.
Watch for Biden announcing a 'shake up' of the military command in the next few
weeks/months.
The US military 2021 retreat from Kabul will result in a slaughter in the USA.
I see the Pentagon pulling the plug on the opium income for the CIA. Now THAT is the real
war. So the CIA now has to pay its mercenary army to defend the harvest and extraction. That
added cost to the CIA will not be taken lightly.
"... By Tom Engelhardt. Originally published at TomDispatch ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... I supported the rule of law and human rights, not to mention the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. ..."
"... In these years, one key to so much of this is the fact that, as the Vietnam War began winding down in 1973, the draft was ended and war itself became a “voluntary†activity for Americans. In other words, it became ever easier not only to not protest American war-making, but to pay no attention to it or to the changing military that went with it. And that military was indeed altering and growing in remarkable ways. ..."
"... “The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on armaments†..."
"... “The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on armaments†..."
"... “Large-scale armaments are inseparable from the expansion of the armed forces and the preparation of plans for a war of conquest. They also induce competitive rearmament of other countries.†..."
Yves here. Englehardt describes how US war-making has been a continuing exercise starting
with World War II. It’s important to recognize that before that, US military
budgets were modest both in national and global terms. But with manufacturing less specialized,
the US was able to turn a considerable amount of its productive capacity to armaments in fairly
short order.
A second point is as someone who was in Manhattan on 9/11, I did not experience the attacks
as war. I saw them as very impressive terrorism. However, I was appalled at how quickly
individuals in positions of authority pushed sentiment in that direction. The attack was on a
Tuesday (I had a blood draw and voted before I even realized Something Bad had happened). I was
appalled to see the saber-rattling in Bush’s speech at the National
Cathedral on Friday. On Sunday, I decided to go to the Unitarian Church around the corner. I
was shocked to hear more martial-speak. And because the church was packed, I had to sit in the
front on the floor, which meant I couldn’t duck out.
Here’s the strange thing in an ever-stranger world: I was born in July
1944 in the midst of a devastating world war. That war ended in August 1945 with the atomic
obliteration of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the most devastating bombs in
history up to that moment, given the sweet code names
“Little Boy†and “Fat Man.â€
I was the littlest of boys at the time. More than three-quarters of a century has passed
since, on September 2, 1945, Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and General Yoshijiro
Umezu
signed the Instrument of Surrender on the battleship U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay,
officially ending World War II. That was V-J (for Victory over Japan) Day, but in a sense for
me, my whole generation, and this country, war never really ended.
The United States has been at war, or at least in armed conflicts of various sorts, often in
distant lands, for more or less my entire life. Yes, for some of those years, that war was
“cold†(which often meant that such carnage, regularly sponsored
by the CIA, happened largely off-screen and out of sight), but war as a way of life never
really ended, not to this very moment.
In fact, as the decades went by, it would become the
“infrastructure†in which Americans increasingly invested their
tax dollars via aircraft
carriers , trillion-dollar jet fighters, drones armed
with Hellfire missiles, and the creation and maintenance of hundreds of military garrisons
around the globe, rather than roads, bridges, or
rail lines (no less the high-speed
version of the same) here at home. During those same years, the Pentagon budget would grab
an ever-larger percentage of
federal discretionary spending and the full-scale annual investment in what has come to be
known as the national security state would rise to a staggering $1.2
trillion or more.
In a sense, future V-J Days became inconceivable. There were no longer moments, even as wars
ended, when some version of peace might descend and America’s vast military
contingents could, as at the end of World War II, be significantly demobilized. The closest
equivalent was undoubtedly the moment when the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, the Cold War
officially ended, and the Washington establishment declared itself globally triumphant. But of
course, the promised “peace dividend†would never be paid out as
the first Gulf War with Iraq occurred that very year and the serious downsizing of the U.S.
military (and the CIA) never happened.
Never-Ending War
Consider it typical that, when President Biden recently
announced the official ending of the nearly 20-year-old American conflict in Afghanistan
with the withdrawal of the last U.S. troops from that country by 9/11/21, it would functionally
be paired with the news that the
Pentagon budget was about to rise yet again from its record heights in the Trump years.
“Only in America,†as retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and
historian William Astore wrote recently,
“do wars end and war budgets go up.â€
Of course, even the ending of that never-ending Afghan War may prove exaggerated. In fact,
let’s consider Afghanistan apart from the rest of this
country’s war-making history for a moment. After all, if I had told you in
1978 that, of the 42 years to follow, the U.S. would be involved in war in a single country for
30 of them and asked you to identify it, I can guarantee that Afghanistan
wouldn’t have been your pick. And yet so it’s been. From
1979 to 1989, there was the
CIA-backed Islamist extremist war against the Soviet army there (to the tune of billions
and billions of dollars). And yet the obvious lesson the Russians learned from that adventure,
as their military limped home in defeat and the Soviet Union imploded not long after
â€" that Afghanistan is indeed the “graveyard of
empires†â€" clearly had no impact in Washington.
Or how do you explain the 19-plus years of warfare there that followed the 9/11 attacks,
themselves committed by a small Islamist outfit, al-Qaeda, born as an American ally in that
first Afghan War? Only recently, the invaluable Costs of War Project
estimated that America’s second Afghan War has cost this country almost
$2.3 trillion (not including the price of lifetime care for its vets) and has left at least
241,000 people dead, including 2,442 American service members. In 1978, after the disaster of
the Vietnam War, had I assured you that such a never-ending failure of a conflict was in our
future, you would undoubtedly have laughed in my face.
And yet, three decades later, the U.S. military high command still seems not faintly to have
grasped the lesson that we “taught†the Russians and then
experienced ourselves. As a result, according to recent reports, they have uniformly
opposed President Biden’s decision to withdraw all American troops from
that country by the 20th anniversary of 9/11. In fact, it’s not even clear
that, by September 11, 2021, if the president’s proposal goes according to
plan, that war will have truly ended. After all, the same military commanders and intelligence
chiefs seem intent on organizing long-distance versions of that conflict or, as the New
York Timesput
it , are determined to “fight from afar†there. They are
evidently even considering
establishing new bases in neighboring lands to do so.
America’s
“forever wars†â€" once known as the Global War on
Terror and, when the administration of George W. Bush launched it, proudly aimed at 60 countries â€"
do seem to be slowly winding down. Unfortunately, other kinds of potential wars, especially new
cold wars with China and Russia (involving new kinds of
high-tech weaponry) only seem to be gearing up.
War in Our Time
In these years, one key to so much of this is the fact that, as the Vietnam War began
winding down in 1973, the draft was
ended and war itself became a “voluntary†activity for
Americans. In other words, it became ever easier not only to not protest American war-making,
but to pay no attention to it or to the changing military that went with it. And that military
was indeed altering and growing in remarkable ways.
In the years that followed, for instance, the elite Green Berets of the Vietnam era would be
incorporated into an ever more expansive set of Special Operations forces, up to 70,000 of
them (larger, that is, than the armed forces of many countries). Those special operators would
functionally become a second, more secretive American military embedded inside the larger force
and largely freed from citizen oversight of any sort. In 2020, as Nick Turse reported, they
would be stationed in a staggering 154 countries
around the planet, often involved in semi-secret conflicts “in the
shadows†that Americans would pay remarkably little attention to.
Since the Vietnam War, which roiled the politics of this nation and was protested in the
streets of this country by an antiwar movement that came to include significant numbers of
active-duty soldiers and veterans, war has played a remarkably recessive role in American life.
Yes, there have been the endless thank-yous
offered by citizens and corporations to “the troops.†But
that’s where the attentiveness stops, while both political parties, year
after endless year, remain remarkably
supportive of a growing Pentagon budget and the industrial (that is, weapons-making) part
of the military-industrial complex. War, American-style, may be forever, but â€"
despite, for instance, the militarization
of this country’s police and the way in which those wars came home
to the Capitol last January 6th â€" it remains a remarkably distant reality for most
Americans.
One explanation: though the U.S. has, as I’ve said, been functionally at
war since 1941, there were just two times when this country felt war directly â€" on
December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and on September 11, 2001, when 19
mostly Saudi hijackers in commercial jets struck New York’s World Trade
Center and the Pentagon.
And yet, in another sense, war has been and remains us. Let’s just
consider some of that war-making for a moment. If you’re of a certain age,
you can certainly call to mind the big wars: Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1954-1975)
â€" and don’t forget the brutal bloodlettings in neighboring Laos
and Cambodia as well â€" that first Gulf War of 1991, and the disastrous second one,
the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Then, of course, there was that Global War on Terror that began
soon after September 11, 2001, with the invasion of Afghanistan, only to spread to much of the
rest of the Greater Middle East, and to significant parts of Africa. In March, for instance,
the
first 12 American special-ops trainers
arrived in embattled Mozambique, just one more small extension of an already widespread
American anti-Islamist terror role (
now failing ) across much of that continent.
And then, of course, there were the smaller conflicts (though not necessarily so to the
people in the countries involved) that we’ve now generally forgotten about,
the ones that I had to search my fading brain to recall. I mean, who today thinks much about
President John F. Kennedy’s April 1961 CIA disaster at the Bay of Pigs in
Cuba; or President Lyndon Johnson’s sending of 22,000 U.S. troops to the
Dominican Republic in 1965 to “restore orderâ€; or President
Ronald Reagan’s version of “aggressive
self-defense†by U.S. Marines sent to Lebanon who, in October 1983, were attacked
in their barracks by a suicide bomber, killing 241 of them;
or the anti-Cuban invasion of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada that
same month in which 19 Americans were killed and 116 wounded?
And then, define and categorize them as you will, there were the CIA’s
endless militarized attempts (sometimes with the help of the U.S. military) to intervene in the
affairs of other countries, ranging from taking the nationalist side against Mao
Zedong’s communist forces in China from 1945 to 1949 to stoking a small ongoing
conflict in Tibet in the 1950s and early 1960s, and overthrowing the governments of Guatemala
and Iran, among other places. There were an
estimated 72 such interventions from 1947 to 1989, many warlike in nature. There were, for
instance, the proxy conflicts in Central America, first in Nicaragua against the Sandinistas
and then in El Salvador, bloody events even if few U.S. soldiers or CIA agents died in them.
No, these were hardly “wars,†as traditionally defined, not all
of them, though they did sometimes involve military coups and the like, but they were generally
carnage-producing in the countries they were in. And that only begins to suggest the range of
this country’s militarized interventions in the post-1945 era, as journalist
William Blum’s “
A Brief History of Interventions †makes all too clear.
Whenever you look for the equivalent of a warless American moment, some reality trips you
up. For instance, perhaps you had in mind the brief period between when the Red Army limped
home in defeat from Afghanistan in 1989 and the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, that
moment when Washington politicians, initially shocked that the Cold War had ended so
unexpectedly, declared themselves triumphant on Planet Earth. That brief period might almost
have passed for “peace,†American-style, if the U.S. military
under President George H. W. Bush hadn’t, in fact, invaded Panama
(“Operation Just Causeâ€) as 1989 ended to get rid of its
autocratic leader Manuel Noriega (a former CIA asset, by the way). Up to 3,000 Panamanians
(including many civilians) died along with 23 American troops in that episode.
And then, of course, in January 1991 the First Gulf War began . It
would result in perhaps 8,000 to 10,000 Iraqi deaths and “onlyâ€
a few hundred deaths among the U.S.-led coalition of forces. Air strikes against Iraq would
follow in the years to come. And let’s not forget that even Europe
wasn’t exempt since, in 1999, during the presidency of Bill Clinton, the
U.S. Air Force launched a destructive 10-week bombing
campaign against the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia.
And all of this remains a distinctly incomplete list, especially in this century when
something like 2
00,000 U.S. troops have regularly been stationed abroad and U.S. Special Operations forces
have deployed to staggering numbers of countries, while American drones regularly attacked
“terrorists†in nation after nation and American presidents
quite literally became assassins-in-chief . To this day,
what scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson called
an American “empire of bases†â€" a historically
unprecedented 800 or more of them â€"
across much of the planet remains untouched and, at any moment, there could be more to come
from the country whose military budget
at least equals those of the next 10 (yes, that’s 10!) countries
combined, including China and Russia.
A Timeline of Carnage
The last three-quarters of this somewhat truncated post-World War II American Century have,
in effect, been a timeline of carnage, though few in this country would notice or acknowledge
that. After all, since 1945, Americans have only once been “at
war†at home, when almost 3,000 civilians died in an attack meant to provoke
â€" well, something like the war on terror that also become a war of terror and a
spreader of terror movements in our world.
As journalist William Arkin recently argued , the U.S. has created a
permanent war state meant to facilitate “endless war.†As he
writes, at this very moment, our nation “is killing or bombing in perhaps 10
different countries,†possibly more, and there’s nothing
remarkably out of the ordinary about that in our recent past.
The question that Americans seldom even think to ask is this: What if the U.S. were to begin
to dismantle its empire of bases,
repurpose so many of those militarized taxpayer dollars to our domestic needs, abandon this
country’s focus on permanent war, and forsake the Pentagon as our holy
church? What if, even briefly, the wars, conflicts, plots, killings, drone assassinations, all
of it stopped?
What would our world actually be like if you simply declared peace and came home?
Here in Asia, many people think the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan was an act of
flaying the dying horse, since Japan was staring at defeat even without the bombs. It was a
totally callous act of the USA to drop the bombs just to “test their
efficacyâ€.
Why then the bombs could not have dropped on Germany that was still waging war at that
time? Asians smirk and say one) the “collateral†damage of
radiation etc., to neighbours like France who were Allies and two) they were (and are)
‘whites’; unlike Japan and its neighbours.
I think that you have the dates mixed up. The war against Germany in Europe ended on May
7th and the testing of the first atom bomb was not until 16th July when the first bomb went
off at Alamogordo in New Mexico. The following month the two remaining atom bombs that the US
had were dropped on Japan. In short, the bombs arrived too late to use in Europe.
The bomb was built with Berlin being the first target, but because the war ended a year
sooner than what everyone thought it would and making the very first bombs took longer than
planned, it was used on Japan. It was probably used as a demonstration for the Soviets, but
considering that sixty-six other large Japanese cities had already been completely destroyed
by “conventional†firebombing, and in
Tokyo’s case, with greater casualties than either nuclear bombing, the
Bomb wasn’t really needed. The descriptions and the personal accounts of
the destruction of Tokyo (or Dresden and Hamburg) are (if that is even possible) worse than
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Honestly, just what new and excitingly horrific ways of killing people the atom bomb used
was not clearly understood. They generally thought of it as a bigger kaboom in a smaller
package. And honestly, being pre-cremated during an entire night with your family and
neighbors in the local bomb-shelter or dying after a few days, weeks, or even a month from
radiation poisoning, is not really a difference is it?
“FOR 20 years after Harry Truman ordered the atomic bomb dropped on
Japan in August 1945, most American scholars and citizens subscribed to the original,
official version of the story: the President had acted to avert a horrendous invasion of
Japan that could have cost 200,000 to 500,000 American lives. Then a young political
economist named Gar Alperovitz published a book of ferocious revisionism,
“Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam†(1965). While
acknowledging the paucity of evidence available at the time, he argued that dropping the
atomic bomb “was not needed to end the war or to save livesâ€
but was Truman’s means of sending a chastening message to the Soviet
Union.â€
If we accept that at face value, then certainly the second bombing was unecessary. The
threat would have been enough. But the US had a second bomb design to
test…
Few things working here. The US needed Japan to surrender quickly before Stalin invaded
(which they asked him to do) so he couldn’t get his forces onto the island
where the Allies couldn’t stop him. Most Japanese feared Stalin and
preferred surrendering to the US but the Japanese government was trying to use talks with the
USSR to get better terms than unconditional surrender (little did they know Stalin was
licking his chops for more territory under his iron curtain).
The first bomb design (little man) was significantly less ambitious, it was so certain to
function they never tested it because a study had proven there was almost no chance it would
fail.
Fat boy was the scientific leap in technology needing to be demonstrated. Building little
man was mostly a matter of enriching Uranium vs Fat boy Plutonium enrichment harder and
detonation mechanism more complicated. However the end result was a bomb that could produce
significantly higher yields with smaller amounts of fissionable material where both the size
of the bomb could be significantly reduced and the yield of the device could be significantly
scaled up at the same time.
Fat boy demonstrated the USA could someday be putting nukes on V2 rockets recently
smuggled out of Germany. Even more important Fat boy is a precursor to the mechanism that
initiates the H bomb fusion devices that Edward Teller would soon be Dr Strangloving.
Even after Trinity Fat boy still had very high odds of failure. They feared looking like
fools if it failed and the USSR ended up with the Plutoniumt. As a result the US Air Force
dropped little man first because it was certain to work. After the 1st bomb dropped, the
Soviets declared war and began their invasion of Japan which forced
Truman’s hand to drop Fat boy too. Even after Fat Boy, war mongers in
Japan still refused to surrender where Emperor Hirohito finally overruled them and although
there was a military coupe attempted, it failed.
Thus ended the most bloody conflict in the history of human kind.
I’m not saying it isn’t true, but is there any
actual evidence that the bombs were dropped as “a message to the Soviet
Union†and not to speed the end of the war?
Also, who exactly wanted to send this “message� The US
generals were against it, I understand.
“What would our world actually be like if you simply declared peace and
came home?â€
a. All those families whose livelihood is based on waging war would have to find a new
job. These people will fight tooth and nail to avoid change
b. The resource grabs by the rich people behind the Oz-like curtain would fail. Their fate
would be that of the English aristocrats who have to rent out their castles in order to
maintain a roof over their head. These people will fight tooth and nail to avoid change
c. The general public would have a fire-hose of newly-available resources to direct toward
activities which benefit all the rest of the families outside A and B above
d. Fear-based leverage by the few over the many would be diminished. Attention would be
re-directed toward valid problems we all face
=====
There’s an interesting question which I see posed from time to time,
and often ask myself. It runs thus:
“Who decides who our “enemies†are, and
why they are “enemies�
This is a fundamental question which I believe very few of us can currently answer
accurately. Yet this question carries a $1.2T per year consequence. That’s
a lot of money to allocate toward something we know nothing about.
One time I asked an acquaintance â€" who spent a career at CIA â€"
that question. His reply was “Why, Congress decides who our enemies are,
and why. Congress then tells the CIA what to doâ€.
I wasn’t sure if he truly believed that. It’s quite
possible he did, of course, and I’m sure many of the people in group A
above surely do think they’re doing honorable and patriotic work.
Group B above â€" the people who are actually moving the chess pieces of
“the Great Game†â€" they are pretty clear on who
defines our “enemies†and why they are
“enemiesâ€. And they wisely don’t stand in
front of podiums and explain their actions. These people aren’t visible,
or explained, or known because it’s better for them not to be.
The way to combat manipulation by these predators is to:
a. Know them by their actions. Predators predate.
b. Don’t participate. In order for them to predate, they need minions.
Don’t be a minion. Instead…
c. Be the giver, the creator and the constructor of things that are of no use to
predators
It’s not the soldiers but the contractors who live in dumpy overpriced
holes like Northern Virginia.
As to your acquaintance, my godfather was in the CIA in the 60’s and a
bit into the 70’s, and he might not say Congress as much as the
President’s Chief of Staff as threat they choose what the President sees.
You have to remember it’s primarily an organization of boring paper
pushers looking to get promoted which requires political patronage. Imagine getting the
Canada desk. You’ll be at a dead end unless you paint it as a grave
threat. Then there is information overload and just the sheer size of the US. They would file
reports, he mentioned an incident in Africa in the wake of decolonization when y godfather
was stationed there that maybe warranted the President’s attention, but to
get information to the President’s CoS took so long, it was in the
President’s daily newspaper before the report could be handled. By then,
why care, given the size of the US? Who can get to the Chief of Staff? Congress, so everyone
else lobbies them. The CIA director is an appendage of the CoS.
When the President wants something, everyone jumps, but when the President
doesn’t care, everyone is jockeying get for patronage.
The war machine is sustained by plutocrats and their sociopathic flunkies in the national
security state. How this works is clearly depicted in “The
Devil’s Chessboard,†by David Talbot, a deeply depressing
chronicle of how Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles did the dirty work of US
corporations worldwide. The arrogance, impunity, and irresponsibility of these men
established the framework of our secret government, which remains intact to this day.
It would be pleasant to believe that this evil persists because of public ignorance, but
like the good Germans of the Nazi era, Americans accept that deception, torture, and murder
are routinely practiced on our behalf to maintain our high standard of living and to keep us
“safe.†The reverence for the operatives of the US national
security state is evident throughout our popular culture, and that is a damning judgment on
the American people.
Of course the core problems are stationed at the place hardest to get to: right between
our ears. This complicity disease runs deep and wide.
While I often succumb to that same despondency you mentioned, occasionally I interrupt the
doom tape to notice that there’s a lot of people who are paddling hard
toward a new ethos…like the posters here @ NC, for ex.
So today I’m going to indulge in a little happiness. Plant a tree. Do
something good, something durable, something hopeful.
Something that offers no real hope of rent extraction potential.
It was nice being accused of supporting the terrorists because I supported the rule of
law and human rights, not to mention the United States Constitution and the Bill of
Rights.
WTF do some people think that the Founders wanted an extremely small army, a large
organized militia, and passed the Bill of Rights? It was a reaction to what the British Army
did to them (using much of the same tactics as the current
“justice†system does today.) The ignorance and lack of
thinking is really annoying.
Much of what the British military did was not good. Even now some of it would not be
allowed in a court of law, but I do not recall them being nearly as violent, brutal, or
deadly in their tactics while enforcing the King’s Law as the current
regime or the local police are. That the milder British tactics caused a civil war with in a
decade, and that the people then had less to fear from an occupying army as we do from
“our†police is disturbing to think on.
But wars always come home, don’t they? Faux toughness on the supposed
baddies here with claims of treason and insurrections on protests and riots now that often
would hardly be in the news fifty years ago, so great was the protests and riots happening
then. The cry to use the same tactics that did not work overseas to be used here at home.
“To keep us safe.â€
There’s truth to this, but once the war was really on, British and
Tory/Loyalist brutality had decisive effects on public opinion, putting lots of people into
the Whig/Patriot camp. Tom Paine makes great efforts to publicize British sexual assaults,
looting, and general thugishness as they chase the Continental Army across New Jersey in
1776; the cruelty of backcountry British cavalry officers and Tory rangers in the Carolinas
was legendary as the war reaches its latter phases.
And there was brutality on the other side, too, especially for Loyalist elites who faced a
kind of “social death.†It was a war, after all, as well as a
social revolution. It wasn’t France in 1789 or Russia in 1917, but it was
rough, especially given the small population size.
Except as Engelhardt just pointed out, the national security state does not
“maintain our high standard of livingâ€.
It’s an immense net drain on our standard of living. The only Americans
made well-to-do or wealthy by it are those who are directly involved in supplying contract
goods and services to the system.
I don’t know if Americans “accept†it as
opposed to taking a dim view of being able to affect change.
The levers the average person has to change the behavior of the state is infinitesimal.
Add to that the scope of action and Overton window mediated by the hypernormalized press
ecosystem just means those in power get to act without restraint.
Hell, Obama literally said “We tortured some
folks†and the media and government barely shrugged. To my knowledge, no one went
to jail, no one was brought up in the Hague, and some of the same ghouls that perpetrated
such crimes got cushy commenter jobs in the media.
Right now, localities can’t even keep their police from regularly
killing citizens.
What does the average person do in the face of such things?
Hell, Obama literally said “We tortured some folks†and
the media and government barely shrugged. To my knowledge, no one went to jail, no one was
brought up in the Hague, and some of the same ghouls that perpetrated such crimes got cushy
commenter jobs in the media.
No one went to jail. Certainly no one went before the Hague. No bankers went to jail
either. Even during the nutty Reagan administration, people went to jail for financial
shenanigans. Some got long sentences. Hell, the Iran-Contra stuff was at least covered and
people were indicted, even if they all got pardoned. Not anymore. These shenanigans are the
norm and happen right out in the open. I’d imagine some of
it’s been given legal cover. It seems like it’s become
the expected behavior within these circles. To act otherwise â€" to attempt to be
honest, in other words â€" is seen as weak and is mocked as fiercely as a weaker
child on the playground might be.
It’s just a continuing regression. And as you note,
it’s an excellent career builder:
“Looking for a job in mainstream media? Research has shown that
reducing your sense of ethics and morality actually helps you get ahead.â€
Doubtless, Ms. Smith and Ms. Engelhardt have provided a key public service here. And I
speak as a veteran, decorated for service in the War Over Oil (a.k.a. the
“Persian Gulf Warâ€).
Between the vast economic inequality currently raging in our country, the social
stratification enabled by access to colleges and universities accepted as
“eliteâ€, the trashing of Constitutional protections (e.g. the
4th Amendment, now thoroughly eviscerated owing to the “PATRIOT
ACTâ€), and the rampaging rule by “intelligence
agencies†over foreign policy, I see no reason why any father should tell his
children that this is a country worth fighting and dying for. [Think: China] Of course, the
Empire â€" just as Rome did in its dying days â€" will be able to find
enough desperately poor who will take the king’s shilling and don the
uniform.
If anyone wishes to prove me wrong, let them work for a substantive
“peace dividend†for a 2-3 years. Then we can sit down and
talk; I’ll buy the ale.
In these years, one key to so much of this is the fact that, as the Vietnam War began
winding down in 1973, the draft was ended and war itself became a
“voluntary†activity for Americans. In other words, it became
ever easier not only to not protest American war-making, but to pay no attention to it or to
the changing military that went with it. And that military was indeed altering and growing in
remarkable ways.
Because, imo,
Since the Vietnam War, which roiled the politics of this nation and was protested in the
streets of this country by an antiwar movement that came to include significant numbers of
active-duty soldiers and veterans, war has played a remarkably recessive role in American
life.
Despite having already ‘pledged’ at my Uncles
Invitation, with the Draft’s End, I had great hope my future would see the
great Peace Dividand rather than 9 more Opportunity Conflicts.
Little did that then 21 year old see the brilliance in that Pentagon Strategy.
I Now firmly support a No Exemption Draft for all post HS.
Military Service being only one, and a restricted one, of many counter-balancing options
available for Public Service for that cohort.
This article reminded me of one of the best Congressional Research Service reports that
I’ve read: Instances of Use of United States
Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2020 . Despite being just a list of dates and locations with a
brief description, it comes in at around 50 pages, which I think is a testament to how
important foreign military engagement has been to the growth of the US even before 1945.
Between these foreign wars and the genocidal war against the indigenous people of the
continent I think it’s fair to say this country has been at war since its
founding.
Correct. Even the so called Louisiana Purchase was not really a purchase of land, but a
faux “option†to engage in land treaties with the native
Americans;.the US chose Indian Wars and relocation treaties that have been violated
repeatedly. (This territory is now known as the Red States.)
The rest of the land extending to the west coast was acquired through conquest with the
new nation of Mexico. I guess the only real honest acquisition would be
Seward’s Icebox.
>>I guess the only real honest acquisition would be Seward’s
Icebox.
Alaska has only been inhabited for a few tens of thousands of years. I would think that
the natives should have some say about who “owns†the land
even though the Russian Empire did say that they did. The reasons sometimes included the use
of guns. As for stealing Mexico’s territory, again that was, and in some
areas still is, inhabited by natives who somehow became under the
“governance†of New Spain or the country of Mexico despite not
being asked about it and often still a majority part of the population in many areas when
Mexico lost control.
Often, Europeans or Americans would show up somewhere, plant a flag, and say that they
claimed or owned the very inhabited land, sometimes with farms and even entire cities. Rather
arrogant, I would say.
I agree. Seward’s Icebox was not empty at time of sale. My
understanding is that Seward thought it was. So faraway, so cold; no one would be living
there, right?
As I’ve commented here many times, it was small pox not small bullets
that allowed the Old World to take the New. There were estimates of 20 million native
Americans living on the land now known as Mexico and the US. 90% were felled by Old World
disease before Custer lost his scalp to the northern Plains Indians. In a fair fight the
Indians would be enforcing the treaties.
It is amazing how the US continues to engage in war and still lose: Korea, Vietnam,
Afghanistan, Iraq. . .Ukraine?
For nearly a decade now every time I’ve read about the war in
Afghanistan I’ve thought about Tim Kreider’s mordant
2011 cartoon We
Could’ve Had The Moon, Instead We Get Afghanistan . Ten years later,
that $432 billion has ballooned to $2.3 trillion (and more) and every word he wrote still
stands. :-(
The author has retired from cartooning and now focuses on essay writing.
We are going to have to halt the production lines.
The warehouses are full of bombs already, there is no more room.
Biden to the rescue; he’s started dropping bombs already.
When you have a large defence industry, you need war.
The only purpose is to use up the output from the defence industry.
“The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment
or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on
armamentsâ€
“Large-scale armaments are inseparable from the expansion of the
armed forces and the preparation of plans for a war of conquest. They also induce competitive
rearmament of other countries.â€
These were the lessons they learnt from the 1930s.
So now, here we are. And how do we create a peaceful world? Refit the US military for a
sustainable world. It will prove to be very useful. We and other advanced nations still have
the advantage for prosperity but we should not abuse it. The whole idea back in 1945 was for
the world to prosper. So I’ll just suggest my usual hack: Get rid of the
profit motive. It’s pure mercantilism. And totally self defeating in a
world seeking sustainability for everyone.
The Manhattan Project was an enormously expensive enterprise with two components
â€" the development of a uranium bomb (Oak Ridge) and a plutonium bomb (Hanford,
WA).
If no bomb had been used, the project would have been considered a waste of time, and
there would have been a congressional investigation. If only one bomb had been used, half the
cost would have been considered a waste.
I’m not saying these were the only reasons for dropping the bombs. The
event was, as they say, “overdetermined.â€
Biden is privatising the war in Afghanistan. 18,000 private contractors will stay behind
to maintain a landing area for U.S. aircraft should the need arise. According to war monger
Lynn Cheney the "troops will never leave". The U.S. National Guard has been fighting
undeclared wars all over the ME for twenty years and legislation is being proposed at the
state level to end the abuse. I personally know one man who has done three tours in Iraq as a
National Guardsman.
I totally agree with your comments concerning the U.S. government here at home. It is
Bolshevism 2.0.
They published another paper in 2017 predicting Russian production would hit 11,268,000 bpd
in 2018. They did not quite make it but they did average 11,252,000 bpd in 2019. They predicted
Russia to peak at 11.5 million bpd in 2020.
In our 2017 paper we identified that projects already in the pipeline, combined with
efforts to slow the
natural decline of brownfields, could push oil production from an average of below 11 mb/d in
2016 to
around 11.5 mb/d by 2020 before going into gradual decline towards 2025.
Of course, the pandemic hit and kept that from happening. But from their 2019 paper, linked
above, concerning brownfield management:
However, the success to date can be seen in the performance of six of the country's
largest production companies, all of which are subsidiaries of the Russian oil majors. (These
majors) have demonstrated a combined average rate of decline of 2 percent per annum over the
past decade, compared to a natural decline rate for fields in West Siberia of around 10-15
percent per annum.
Massive infill drilling has gotten their brownfield decline down from a natural decline rate
of 10-15 percent to 2 percent. But they do not believe this decline rate can be held:
An additional concern is that our long-term forecast for brownfield decline, of 2-3
percent per annum,
may be too optimistic if the current performance cannot be maintained as fields move further
into their
final years
And they say, concerning the below chart", bold mine.
Figure 10 below. As can be seen, the overall output figure in 2030 of just over 8 mb/d is
close to the "Brownfield+2 per cent" case in the corporate analysis above, implying that the
regional analysis assumes a more normal decline curve for average oilfields in Russia. In other
words, it confirms that the corporate analysis assumes continued technology progression,
especially in slowing the brownfield decline, and therefore it is important to assess how this
may be achieved. Indeed, an overall question is how can the Russian oil industry
achieve the target set for it by the Ministry of Energy of maintaining production at 550 mm
tonnes per
annum (11.05 mb/d) until the end of the next decade? In other words, will the Russian oil
sector be
able to fill a 2.5 mb/d gap by 2030, particularly when it seems that its major producing
regions (West
Siberia and the Volga-Urals) will be in permanent decline by then?
What they are saying here is there may be serious problems with the Ministry of Energy's
production goals. They seem to doubt it. Their brownfield production, (West Siberia and the
Volga-Urals) shown in blue in the chart below, was about 80 percent of total Russian production
in 2018 and 2019. Hey, 80% of their production will be in serious decline for the rest of this
decade. Does anyone really believe the small fields they are finding in the East Siberian
Arctic will replace that?
Terrific post. Thanks Ron. I like the candidness of the Russians on important issues. Far
more realistic than EIA et al elevation of "wishful thinking" to the status of
"data".
I totally disagree with this statement, which is very commonly made by too many.
" I suspect that combustion-only vehicles will only make a small percent of new vehicles
sales by 2030, but it will take a long time to retire the current fleet of combustion-only
vehicles throughout the world. "
Last week Honda said that by 2030. they were expecting their vehicles sales to be 40% EVs.
While I certainly respect their decision, which is less ambitious and more conservative than
other auto manufacturers, let's just do a quick and simple calculation to see what this really
means.
US EV sales, BEVs plus PHEVs, in 2020 were close to 2%. So how much of a yearly rate
increase in sales do we need to get to 40% in 10 years. How about 2*(1.3493^10) = 40. So EV
sales have to increase at the rate of a shade less than 35% each year to get to 40% by 2030.
Recent trends have been closer to 10% and slowing.
I think 40% by 2040 is more realistic. That would only take a 16% annual increase to get to
40% and even that may be a stretch.
"... Bernie Sanders in 2016, the self-described democratic socialist "showed little interest or knowledge about US-Russia relations and the attendant dangers of a new cold war." Instead, Sanders was ultimately content to mimic the juvenile and Manichean "democracies versus authoritarians" model of international relations. ..."
"... in the Obama era, as mediocre academics like Celeste Wallander were given positions on the National Security Council, and an ideologue like Michael McFaul was bizarrely appointed as ambassador. ..."
"... Under Biden – who caved to pressure from the foreign policy blob to not appoint Rojansky – the advisers who are in place or in line, including Jake Sullivan , Antony Blinken , Madeleine Albright/Hillary Clinton adviser Wendy Sherman, the German Marshall Fund's Karen Donfried , and State Department nominee Victoria Nuland represent more of the same dangerous ineptitude and strident thinking. Many of these advisers, like their predecessors, have little on-the-ground experience with contemporary Russia. ..."
"... Neoconservative ideologue Nuland, of course, is a slightly different case in that she has put her boots on the ground in the region. Unfortunately, that experience includes facilitating the dangerously divisive 2014 coup in Ukraine, without which Crimea would still be in Ukraine and the Donbass would be at peace. Competent officials would have warned Obama and Biden that the Maidan would lead to consequences like these. ..."
"... importantly, this 'perceived enemy' and its corresponding narrative sells... it enriches the military complexes, CIA etc. Even if it sounded unbelievable and outrageous, they will still be regurgitated and at best, given a new guised repackaging ..."
"... the author assumes that the mistakes made by advisors to Obama and others were because of incompetence, when in fact it should be seriously considered they were actually quite deliberate and planned ..."
"... the job was NOT to deliver facts to the public; the job was to tell the public how to think and what to believe; ie. anti-Russia propaganda. ..."
The rejection
of Matthew Rojansky's candidacy as a Russia adviser to Joe Biden represents an escalation, and
not a departure, from a pervasive bipartisan American pattern of dangerous ignorance about
Russia in the post-Soviet era.
It was reported last week that Joe Biden's government would not be hiring Rojansky, of the
Kennan Institute think tank, to help form policy towards Russia. Though the analyst is known as
a moderate realist regarding Russia issues – in other words, he is not a virulent
anti-Moscow ideologue – he was considered too controversial to be allowed a hearing
during White House deliberations on policy regarding the world's largest country.
Rojansky's sin? Unlike many of the current crop of foreign policy officials, he actually has
some expertise and experience on the subject.
While the scholar's fate may be a glaring and extreme
example of an anti-Russia mindset in Washington that is counterproductive, it represents
only a new low, and not a change from a pervasive bipartisan pattern in the post-Soviet
era.
Those who aspire to, or attain, the most powerful executive position in the United States
have shown a disturbingly willful ignorance of Russia. I learned from a former State Department
official that, in response to a renowned Russia expert attempting to brief presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders in 2016, the self-described democratic socialist "showed little
interest or knowledge about US-Russia relations and the attendant dangers of a new cold
war." Instead, Sanders was ultimately content
to mimic the juvenile and Manichean "democracies versus authoritarians" model of
international relations.
Similarly, an American business executive told me that, during a lunch with him and other
leaders of commerce at the US Embassy in Moscow in 2012, then-Vice President Joe Biden showed
no interest in his interlocutors' suggestions that it was in the US' best interests to partner
with Russia after they offered social, economic, and strategic justifications for their
view.
Biden seemed to see the meeting as an opportunity to lecture on his position rather than to
learn or seek insight on Russia.
Moreover, once a US president is in power, the advisers that are appointed to counsel the
commander in chief about Russia have been less than impressive from the 1990s onward.
Condoleezza Rice served as an expert in the George Bush Senior administration and was
wrong about the impending collapse of the Soviet Union. During her stint as secretary of
state in the second term of the junior Bush administration, her Russian counterparts who spent
significant time with her made the observation
that Rice was "a Soviet expert, and not a Russia expert."
There was little improvement in the Obama era, as mediocre academics like Celeste Wallander were
given positions on the National Security Council, and an ideologue like Michael McFaul was
bizarrely appointed as ambassador.
According to investigative journalist Gareth Porter, advisers to Obama were so utterly
incompetent that those serving in the administration really didn't think Russia had the ability
or inclination to counter Washington's provocative actions in
Syria, and therefore they did not plan for that possibility. This incompetence was also
highlighted by Obama's public comments to the Economist in 2014, in which he claimed that
Russia didn't make anything, immigrants didn't go there, and male life expectancy was 60 years
– three claims that anyone with actual expertise on Russia should have easily known were
false.
In fact, at that point, Russia was the second most popular migration destination in the
world, after America itself, while average lifespans have been converging with those of the US
over the past decade. As for manufacturing, Obama said these words at a time when the US, for
instance, was totally reliant on Russian rockets for access to space, having retired its own
unreliable Space Shuttle fleet. If he had access to a competent adviser on the subject, would
he have made these mistakes?
Under Biden – who caved to pressure from the foreign policy blob to not appoint
Rojansky – the advisers who are in place or in line, including Jake Sullivan , Antony Blinken ,
Madeleine Albright/Hillary Clinton adviser Wendy Sherman, the German Marshall Fund's Karen
Donfried , and State
Department nominee Victoria Nuland represent more of the same dangerous
ineptitude and strident thinking. Many of these advisers, like their predecessors, have little
on-the-ground experience with contemporary Russia.
Neoconservative ideologue Nuland, of course, is a slightly different case in that she has
put her boots on the ground in the region. Unfortunately, that experience includes facilitating
the dangerously divisive 2014 coup in Ukraine, without which Crimea would still be in Ukraine
and the Donbass would be at peace. Competent officials would have warned Obama and Biden that
the Maidan would lead to consequences like these.
It takes a special kind of hubris for the US political class to keep thinking they can get
away with this level of sloppiness in understanding the world's other nuclear superpower
– a country so massive that it straddles two major continents and is the sixth largest
economy in terms of purchasing power parity – without serious consequences. At what point
will God's providence run out?
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
Natylie Baldwin is author of "The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia
Relations," available at Amazon. She blogs at http://natyliesbaldwin.com/ .
"Washington has a dangerous & destructive pattern of wilful ignorance on Russia in
post-Soviet era" It is not just wilful ignorance per se. Without a 'perceived enemy', the
narrative for Russia will fall apart. Ditto China, Iran, N Korea et al.
But importantly, this
'perceived enemy' and its corresponding narrative sells... it enriches the military
complexes, CIA etc. Even if it sounded unbelievable and outrageous, they will still be
regurgitated and at best, given a new guised repackaging, but with the antiquated contents
remaining intact.
dotmafia 6 hours ago 6 hours ago
Good article, but, the author assumes that the mistakes made by advisors to Obama and others
were because of incompetence, when in fact it should be seriously considered they were
actually quite deliberate and planned. In the example of Obama's remarks to The Economist,
the job was NOT to deliver facts to the public; the job was to tell the public how to think
and what to believe; ie. anti-Russia propaganda.
Levin High 8 hours ago 8 hours ago
It used to be said that you couldn't be fired for buying IBM, now days in the US you seem to
be hired for blaming Russia.
apothqowejh 9 hours ago 9 hours ago
The US State Department is packed with idiots, political appointees, ideologues and globalist
nut jobs. Their lack of anything remotely like competence is as astonishing as the CIA's full
on embrace of evil.
wowhead1977 4 hours ago 4 hours ago
The cabal in America always want to blame Russia. I'm a American citizen and have no problem
with Russia. These so called sanctions on other countries is a control tactic that most
Americans didn't vote for. This race baiting tactic is from The Fabian Society play book.
Wolf in sheep's clothing is the Fabian Society logo.
We must realize that our Party's most
powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races,
that for centuries have been oppressed by the Whites, we can mold them to the program of the
Communist Party ... In America, we will aim for subtle victory. While enflaming the color
people minority against the Whites, we will instill in the Whites, a guilt complex for the
exploitation of the color people.
We will aid the color people to rise to prominence in every
walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this
prestige, the color people will be able to intermarry with the Whites, and begin a process
which will deliver America to our cause." ~ Israel Cohen - Fabian Society Founder
Wodehouse, that most perfect of stylists, was not as lost in his imaginary world as
all that. I suppose his main sources for pastiche or parody were the Bible,
Shakespeare, American gangster idiom and such novelists as Ethel M Dell. That's where
he got his square jawed characters who went out to often unspecified parts of the
Empire and did often unspecified great things. Wodehouse rips them to pieces, as he
also shreds the English Blut und Boden Fascists of the pre-war years. I suppose I,
courtesy of old second-hand bookshops, must be one of the few who've read Ethel M Dell.
Often wonder what people who haven't make of Wodehouse.
Dickens is I think misrepresented in the article. His extraordinarily vivid
characters derive from his personal and first hand experience. He knew little of Empire
or had little contact with it, but knew enough to rip apart Mrs Jellyby's misdirected
do-goodery in Borioboola-Gha. I thought of Mrs Jellyby when President Biden's
philanthropic schemes for South Amrerica were being discussed on the Colonel's site
recently.
In fact the British Empire, for all the harm it did, is a transient affair not to be
confused with the great continental land empires. Disraeli got going with the "Queen
Empress" braggadocio in the late nineteenth century and barely twenty years later
Kipling was writing the prophetic obituary of that chapter of English history.
It's an accurate article as far as I know – the exploitation of the Indian
peasant, for example, was shocking in its ruthlessness. We get a more balanced account
of the Irish famine from modern Irish historians though in my view, for all Victoria's
munificant £5,000, the failure to get to grips with that famine was not only a
condemnation of the neo-liberals of that era. It removed for all time any prospect of
peaceful union between Ireland and England. Don't forget Dr Johnson's remark when Union
was being mooted many decades earlier. ""Do not make an union with us, Sir. We should
unite with you only to rob you. We should have robbed the Scotch, if they had had
anything of which we could have robbed them".
-The Greens, if they "win" will not win with a majority. That means they will need
coalition partners. Neither the CDU or the SPD is going to go along with their plan to stop
NS2. The Greens, in order to form a govt. will cave in on NS2 and probably other things.
-The Ukies are still fleeing the country to avoid going to the front. The Ukie brass says
as much. These are not soldiers. They are farm kids. At the 1st sign of serious war, they
will all head for the russians with hands in the air.
-V. Putin handled the western MSM narrative quite well, imo, when he said "Those behind
provocations that threaten the core interests of our security will regret what they have done
in a way they have not regretted anything for a long time." It can't be clearer than that.
And that tells me that the ussa is in the crosshairs. This may be the 1st time in history
that the oceans will offer no protection for the warmongers that have been at war for 222
years of 237 years of their existence
The comedian is still flaying about and now trying to play the SWIFT card (last week it
was nuclear weapons, before that it was...). Which, of course, the west will not honor
because it would cripple the west as much or more than RU. I would imagine he needs to change
his undershorts on an hourly basis these days. He is literally caught between a rock and a
hard spot. No more support from DE, FR, US, NATO, TR except good wishes. And demands from his
brain-dead Banderites are only growing more shrill. What's a poor comic to do?
The west is basically done with him and with the show of force by the russians they are
more done with him than before. For his sake, i hope his khazarian passport app has been
approved.
Another failed state compliments of the khazarians in DC. And the beat goes on.
Eighthman @10 North Stream 2 will be the last mayor cooperation between Russia and Europe
for the next 10, 20 years. If you had to choose where to put your money, would you put it in
a gas pipeline to China (Power of Siberia) or a gas pipeline to Europe (North Stream2)?
Putin will be the last Russian president who looked west, to Europe; the next president
will look east, to Asia. It's where the money is.
I know how the German system works. Yet I am not seeing the Greens win or compose the next
government if they threaten to cancel NS2. The NS2 is not about the CDU/CSU but about the
German elite interest. No way they are going to give green light to the Greens. Speaking of
someone which city is on the border.
There is ONE little thing Mike Whitney missed, or maybe it developed as/after he wrote
this, the State Department told Germany last week there would be no further sanctions on
Germany or her companies as regards Nordstream II. I believe also that a four-Euro-country
coalition told the U.S. a couple of weeks ago that this was for Germany's energy security,
Nordstream that is and they sounded like they're serious about any further American
interference in the matter.
On the subject of LNG, is it even possible to transport enough LNG from the United States
to Germany in quantity equal to the flow of Nordstream II? That pipe they're laying looks of
sufficient diameter to walk through standing up, it's going to pass a LOT of gas. I don't
know what the flow rates and pressures are, but I know one thing; Boston has a large LNG
terminal and it's a dangerous setup. Pipelines seem to me a safer enterprise.
-The Ziocorporate globalist NATO/EU terrorists: We supported Chechen terrorist separatists
and KLA organ-harvesting Jihadis, dismembered Yugoslavia and bombed Serbia, used your Russian
airspace that you opened for us to invade Afghanistan after the 9/11 Zioterrorist
self-attacks, instigated Georgia into war with Russia, used your UNSC vote to destroy Libya
with ISIS, turned EUkraine into a NATO satellite complete with an bloody massacre in Odessa
and yet another massmurderous war on Russia's border and blamed and sanctioned you for it,
shot down your planes in Syria; and we're gonna be taking Belarus the moment Lukashenko
blinks. But we're really good business partners, and need some gas, you know...
To my American readers I'd say that the US is very strong and the people of the US can
have a wonderful life even without world hegemony, in fact, hegemony is not in their
interests at all. What they should seek is a strong nationalist policy that cares for
the American people and avoids wasteful foreign wars.
The problem here, is that the American people are crushed and powerless, and in the grip
of something morphing into a Neo-Bolshevik style dictatorship. Similarly to the mid 1930's
this dictatorship wants world power – and from this perspective Ukraine looks more like
Spain 1936 (the first act of a much bigger show).
Biden's recent phone call to Putin suggests that the administration has decided not to
launch a war after all. The unconfirmed report of two US ships turning away from the Black
Sea fits this assessment. However, we cannot be sure about this since the Kremlin refused
to agree to Biden's offer for a meeting. The Kremlin's response was a frosty "We shall
study the proposal". Russians feel that the summit proposal might be a trick aimed at
buying time to strengthen their position.
Except that the US ordered two British warships to go there instead.
TASS, April 18. Two British warships will sail for the Black Sea in May. According to
The Sunday Times, a source in the Royal Navy indicated that this gesture is intended to
show solidarity with Ukraine and NATO in the region against the background of the situation
at the Russian-Ukrainian border.
According to the newspaper, one Type 45 destroyer armed with anti-aircraft missiles and
an anti-submarine Type 23 frigate will peel off from the Royal Navy's carrier task group in
the Mediterranean and sail through the Bosphorus into the Black Sea.
It is reported that the decision was made in order to support Ukraine after the US
cancelled its plans of sending two destroyers to the Black Sea in order to avoid further
escalation in the region and tensions with Russia. It is noted that in case of a threat on
the part of Russia, the UK is ready to send other military equipment to the region.
I would guess that the US Trotskyites plan to push the Ukrainians into a war and then
launch a massive international media barrage, "heroic Ukrainian patriots", "Russian
atrocities", "killer Putin" etc. sufficient to finish with Nord Stream 2 and scare France and
Germany back into the US fold.
If this is right, then they're not expecting Russia to retake the whole of the Ukraine,
and they're not planning to start WW3.
However, Russia's lowest risk strategy would probably still be to only defend their
existing positions making it difficult to claim a "Russian invasion". They've probably
already lost Nord Stream (which is really a German loss – and the Germans know what the
ZioGlob are doing here). This buys time, and given that the US is already on a fast downward
slope, lets them keep sliding.
@Anonymous
point the finger and shriek about 'Russian aggression' in order to pressure the Germans into
cancelling Nordstream 2 and any other Russian supplied energy.
Of course if the Europeans weren't run by (((banker))) stooges and if they had any balls
between them they would force the US to call the whole thing off and pressure the Ukrainian
fascists to honour the Minsk 2 agreement. Sadly we are just going to have to prepare for the
worst and hope it doesn't go nuclear.
I see my own government (I am from the UK) has decided to send some sacrificial ships to
the Black sea (the US apparently doesn't want to risk theirs) What else can we expect when
2/3 of our parliament are in 'Friends of Israel' groups?
The Ukrainians who would the hardest to pacify are in the Ukie Diaspora in US, Canada and
Western Europe. These folks still maintain a WW II mentality, act as if the Holodomor (which
was terrible) only happened the other day and have a fair number of Banderists among their
number. They do not wish to acknowledge that the Holodomor was orchestrated by the same Jews
who launched the Bolshevik Revolution and killed millions of Orthodox Russians more than a
decade beforehand. The ideal would be for Ukraine to maintain it territorial integrity minus
perhaps the Donbas and go forward with a positive relationship with Russia.
@Anonymous
refugees, including tens of thousands of Russian passport holders, trek into Russia, creating
a nightmare for Putin. Ukranazistan is enormously emboldened, joins NATO de facto if not yet
de jure, Russia is tremendously weakened, loses all allies and prospective allies. Win for
Amerikastan.
Scenario 2: Putin intervenes.
Result: Amerikastan leaves the Ukranazis high and dry, but shrieks about Evil Russian
Invasion; NordStream II and all other economic connections with Europe are severed.
Amerikastan immensely reasserts its control over Europe, sells its LNG to Germany at much
inflated prices, and its useless weapons to everyone to "defend against Russia". Hands Russia
the unenviable burden of the ruin o
66,319
Kouros says: 
English Outsider says: